Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarBreve Análise do Samsung Galaxy Note20 - Nem sempre melhor que o Note10
Comparison Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 88.1 % | 10/2020 | Samsung Galaxy Note20 Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11 | 192 g | 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.70" | 2400x1080 | |
| 86.1 % | 03/2020 | Oppo Find X2 Pro SD 865, Adreno 650 | 202 g | 512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.70" | 3168x1440 | |
| 88.2 % | 04/2020 | Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro SD 865, Adreno 650 | 208 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2340x1080 | |
| 88.5 % | 04/2020 | OnePlus 8 Pro SD 865, Adreno 650 | 199 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.78" | 3168x1440 | |
| 89 % | 12/2019 | Huawei Mate 30 Pro Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16 | 198 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.53" | 2400x1176 | |
| 87.1 % | 09/2019 | Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU | 226 g | 64 GB SSD | 6.50" | 2688x1242 | |
| 89.6 % | 02/2021 | Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11 | 208 g | 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.90" | 3088x1440 |
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.
WeitwinkelWeitwinkelZoom (5-fach)UltraweitwinkelLow-Light
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 95 %
iluminação com acumulador: 610 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.4 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 2.8 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
99.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.09
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 Super AMOLED Plus, 2400x1080, 6.70 | Samsung Galaxy Note10 Dynamic AMOLED, 2280x1080, 6.30 | Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra Dynamic AMOLED, 3088x1440, 6.90 | Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max OLED, 2688x1242, 6.50 | Huawei Mate 30 Pro OLED, 2400x1176, 6.53 | OnePlus 8 Pro AMOLED, 3168x1440, 6.78 | Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.67 | Oppo Find X2 Pro AMOLED, 3168x1440, 6.70 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -2% | -22% | 26% | -5% | 42% | 36% | -38% | |
| Brightness middle | 610 | 764 25% | 860 41% | 790 30% | 592 -3% | 796 30% | 753 23% | 778 28% |
| Brightness | 621 | 757 22% | 878 41% | 790 27% | 605 -3% | 779 25% | 762 23% | 775 25% |
| Brightness Distribution | 95 | 91 -4% | 96 1% | 97 2% | 96 1% | 94 -1% | 96 1% | 99 4% |
| Black Level * | ||||||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 2.4 | 2.66 -11% | 4.5 -88% | 1.4 42% | 2.5 -4% | 0.68 72% | 0.9 62% | 4.4 -83% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 4.3 | 5.65 -31% | 10.4 -142% | 3.4 21% | 5.5 -28% | 1.55 64% | 1.6 63% | 8.7 -102% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.8 | 3.2 -14% | 2.4 14% | 1.9 32% | 2.6 7% | 1.1 61% | 1.5 46% | 5.6 -100% |
| Gamma | 2.09 105% | 2.073 106% | 2 110% | 2.23 99% | 2.16 102% | 2.237 98% | 2.24 98% | 2.26 97% |
| CCT | 6368 102% | 6326 103% | 6466 101% | 6466 101% | 6173 105% | 6310 103% | 6415 101% | 7250 90% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 250 Hz | ≤ 99 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 250 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 250 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17924 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2 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. » 9 % 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 | ||
| 9.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 4.8 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 4.8 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 18 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms). | ||
| AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro | |
| OnePlus 8 Pro | |
| Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
| Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 990 (296746 - 527820, n=5) | |
| Basemark GPU 1.1 | |
| 1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 990 (71.4 - 71.6, n=2) | |
| Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value) | |
| Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 990 (42.3 - 63, n=2) | |
| 1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 990 (84.1 - 85.6, n=2) | |
| VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro | |
| Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 990 (4607 - 4957, n=3) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2523 - 10071, n=12, last 2 years) | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 351, n=172, last 2 years) | |
| Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 (Samsung Browser 12.1) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 990 (50.6 - 56.8, n=5) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
| Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
| OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 (Samsung Browser 12.1) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 990 (89.3 - 96.2, n=5) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (14.9 - 445, n=157, last 2 years) | |
| Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
| OnePlus 8 Pro (Chome 80) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 (Samsung Browser 12.1) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 990 (50.8 - 64.4, n=4) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (39 - 304, n=122, last 2 years) | |
| Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 (Samsung Browser 12.1) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 990 (86 - 102, n=5) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 89112, n=210, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 (Samsung Browser 12.1) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 990 (18094 - 20022, n=5) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 990 (2294 - 2511, n=5) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 (Samsung Browser 12.1) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
| Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (388 - 9999, n=172, last 2 years) | |
| Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 | Samsung Galaxy Note10 | Oppo Find X2 Pro | Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro | OnePlus 8 Pro | Huawei Mate 30 Pro | Average 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -15% | -7% | 10% | -6% | -6% | 30% | 17% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 1683 | 1478 -12% | 1606 -5% | 1739 3% | 1627 -3% | 1781 6% | 1760 ? 5% | 1505 ? -11% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 780 | 590 -24% | 729 -7% | 750 -4% | 730 -6% | 401.8 -48% | 1134 ? 45% | 1112 ? 43% |
| Random Read 4KB | 207.6 | 194.2 -6% | 202.6 -2% | 264.9 28% | 208.3 0% | 226.4 9% | 281 ? 35% | 247 ? 19% |
| Random Write 4KB | 233.8 | 191.9 -18% | 205 -12% | 258.5 11% | 197.7 -15% | 259.2 11% | 311 ? 33% | 271 ? 16% |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 35.5 °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 32.6 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 25.9 °C / 79 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
Samsung Galaxy Note20 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.9% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (15.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 2% of all tested devices in this class were better, 3% similar, 95% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 20% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 76% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.1% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (1.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (14.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 1% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 15% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 81% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0.02 / 0.36 Watt |
| Ocioso |  0.92 / 1.5 / 1.54 Watt |
| Carga |
5.49 / 9.99 Watt |
    
| |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 4300 mAh | Oppo Find X2 Pro 4260 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro 4500 mAh | OnePlus 8 Pro 4510 mAh | Huawei Mate 30 Pro 4500 mAh | Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max 3969 mAh | Average Samsung Exynos 990 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -67% | 23% | -78% | 7% | -22% | -3% | 3% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.92 | 1.47 -60% | 0.61 34% | 2.2 -139% | 0.87 5% | 0.92 -0% | 0.846 ? 8% | 0.897 ? 2% |
| Idle Average * | 1.5 | 3.43 -129% | 1.19 21% | 3.3 -120% | 1.75 -17% | 2.9 -93% | 1.534 ? -2% | 1.452 ? 3% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.54 | 3.52 -129% | 1.23 20% | 3.7 -140% | 1.83 -19% | 2.94 -91% | 1.858 ? -21% | 1.629 ? -6% |
| Load Average * | 5.49 | 6.2 -13% | 4.18 24% | 5.9 -7% | 3.85 30% | 3.65 34% | 5.14 ? 6% | 5.55 ? -1% |
| Load Maximum * | 9.99 | 10.63 -6% | 8.53 15% | 8.3 17% | 6.64 34% | 6.18 38% | 10.7 ? -7% | 8.31 ? 17% |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 4300 mAh | Samsung Galaxy Note10 3500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 4500 mAh | Oppo Find X2 Pro 4260 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro 4500 mAh | OnePlus 8 Pro 4510 mAh | Huawei Mate 30 Pro 4500 mAh | Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max 3969 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -22% | -10% | 11% | -1% | 10% | 3% | 32% | |
| Reader / Idle | 2067 | 1392 -33% | 1223 -41% | 2133 3% | 2103 2% | 2174 5% | 2618 27% | |
| H.264 | 1123 | 803 -28% | 993 -12% | 973 -13% | 1023 -9% | 1098 -2% | 1346 20% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 589 | 583 -1% | 644 9% | 654 11% | 865 47% | 923 57% | 823 40% | 909 54% |
| Load | 326 | 246 -25% | 338 4% | 198 -39% | 296 -9% | 219 -33% | 408 25% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto – Melhor que sua reputação
Ao olhar para as folhas de especificações e comparar o Note 20 e o Note 20 Ultra lado a lado, o primeiro parece exigir que sejam feitas algumas concessões. Por exemplo, o 5G não está disponível no modelo inferior e a tela de 60 Hz não é adequada para sua classe. O fabricante coreano foi ainda mais longe e regrediu para uma tecnologia de tela mais antiga do que a do predecessor do Note20. Sem surpresa, a reação típica do entusiasta de tecnologia foi algo entre sobrancelhas levantadas e um ataque cardíaco moderadamente grave. A cereja do topo do bolo europeu é o fato de que a Samsung continua a usar seus SoCs internos mais lentos para dispositivos vendidos na Europa, apesar do fato de que os atuais SoCs da Qualcomm conseguiram ampliar ainda mais a brecha de desempenho.
O Samsung Galaxy Note20 carece de alguns recursos que seria de esperar de um smartphone topo de linha atual. No entanto, seu conceito geral permanece muito poderoso e forte.
Para manter as coisas em perspectiva, o Galaxy Note20 continua sendo um smartphone carro-chefe poderoso com um preço sugerido de menos de US$ 1.000 e um preço de rua significativamente mais baixo. Se você está procurando um smartphone poderoso com suporte para S-Pen e garantia de atualização de longo prazo com orçamento limitado, o Note20 pode ser o dispositivo certo para você. A tela plana e o menor relevo da câmera tornam o trabalho com a S-Pen muito mais conveniente e, se você nunca experimentou uma tela com mais de 60 Hz, provavelmente não sentirá falta dela. A única desvantagem real é a tela mais escura com o benefício adicional de cores mais naturais do que no modelo Ultra.
Samsung Galaxy Note20
-
08/31/2022 v7
Daniel Schmidt
Pricecompare
