Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarBreve Análise do Samsung Galaxy S10 Lite - Smartphone com uma bateria potente
Competing Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 86 % | 03/2020 | Samsung Galaxy S10 Lite SD 855, Adreno 640 | 186 g | 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.70" | 2400x1080 | |
| 87.4 % | 03/2019 | Samsung Galaxy S10 Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12 | 157 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.10" | 3040x1440 | |
| 86.4 % | 04/2019 | Huawei P30 Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10 | 165 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.10" | 2340x1080 | |
| 86.2 % | 03/2019 | Xiaomi Mi 9 SD 855, Adreno 640 | 173 g | 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.39" | 2340x1080 | |
| 85.7 % | 07/2019 | LG G8s ThinQ SD 855, Adreno 640 | 181 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.20" | 2248x1080 |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Huawei P30 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S10 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| LG G8s ThinQ | |
| Samsung Galaxy S10 Lite | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S10 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S10 Lite | |
| LG G8s ThinQ | |
| Huawei P30 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 96 %
iluminação com acumulador: 622 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.7 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 3 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
98.3% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.09
| Samsung Galaxy S10 Lite Super AMOLED Plus, 2400x1080, 6.70 | Samsung Galaxy S10 OLED, 3040x1440, 6.10 | Samsung Galaxy S10e AMOLED, 2280x1080, 5.80 | Huawei P30 OLED, 2340x1080, 6.10 | Xiaomi Mi 9 AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.39 | LG G8s ThinQ P-OLED, 2248x1080, 6.20 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -5% | 7% | 20% | 28% | -11% | |
| Brightness middle | 622 | 701 13% | 426 -32% | 561 -10% | 593 -5% | 539 -13% |
| Brightness | 630 | 705 12% | 427 -32% | 560 -11% | 587 -7% | 556 -12% |
| Brightness Distribution | 96 | 98 2% | 96 0% | 95 -1% | 94 -2% | 88 -8% |
| Black Level * | ||||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 2.7 | 3.7 -37% | 2.14 21% | 1.5 44% | 0.9 67% | 3.78 -40% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 5.9 | 10.3 -75% | 3.29 44% | 2.5 58% | 2 66% | 6.95 -18% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 3 | 1.4 53% | 1.8 40% | 1.8 40% | 1.5 50% | 2.2 27% |
| Gamma | 2.09 105% | 2.1 105% | 2.111 104% | 2.2 100% | 2.27 97% | 2.274 97% |
| CCT | 6246 104% | 6553 99% | 6329 103% | 6512 100% | 6548 99% | 6013 108% |
* ... 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 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 | ||
| 3.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 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. » 9 % 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) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S10 Lite | |
| Samsung Galaxy S10 | |
| Huawei P30 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| LG G8s ThinQ | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (27 - 58, n=20) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 158, n=185, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S10 Lite | |
| Samsung Galaxy S10 | |
| Huawei P30 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| LG G8s ThinQ | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (35 - 71, n=20) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.2 - 279, n=185, last 2 years) | |
| AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S10 Lite | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| LG G8s ThinQ | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (376698 - 451559, n=8) | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 351, n=173, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S10 Lite (Chrome 80) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (45.5 - 67, n=16) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73) | |
| LG G8s ThinQ (Chrome 75) | |
| Huawei P30 (Chrome 73) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Samsung Galaxy S10 Lite (Chrome 80) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (84.4 - 120, n=17) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
| Huawei P30 (Chrome 73) | |
| LG G8s ThinQ (Chrome 75) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S10 (Samsung Browser 9.0) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (14.9 - 445, n=157, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
| LG G8s ThinQ (Chome 75) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S10 Lite (Chrome 80) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (42.5 - 67.9, n=15) | |
| Huawei P30 (Chrome 73) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S10 (Samsung Browser 9.0) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (39 - 304, n=122, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
| LG G8s ThinQ (Chrome 75) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (90 - 129, n=20) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S10 Lite (Chrome 80) | |
| Huawei P30 (Chrome 73) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 89112, n=213, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
| LG G8s ThinQ (Chrome 75) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (17011 - 33918, n=21) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S10 Lite (Chrome 80) | |
| Huawei P30 (Chrome 73) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S10 (Samsung Browser 9.0) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (1852 - 2611, n=19) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S10 Lite (Chrome 80) | |
| Huawei P30 (Chrome 73) | |
| LG G8s ThinQ (Chrome 75) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S10 (Samsung Browser 9.0) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (388 - 9999, n=173, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy S10 Lite | Samsung Galaxy S10 | Huawei P30 | Xiaomi Mi 9 | LG G8s ThinQ | Average 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -35% | -16% | -27% | -43% | 1% | 50% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 1489 | 832 -44% | 909 -39% | 666 -55% | 791 -47% | 1520 ? 2% | 1508 ? 1% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 525 | 193.2 -63% | 186 -65% | 388.3 -26% | 182.4 -65% | 546 ? 4% | 1118 ? 113% |
| Random Read 4KB | 191.7 | 137.4 -28% | 138.8 -28% | 149.4 -22% | 138 -28% | 206 ? 7% | 247 ? 29% |
| Random Write 4KB | 173.5 | 24.44 -86% | 195.3 13% | 165.3 -5% | 29.6 -83% | 193.9 ? 12% | 272 ? 57% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 76 ? | 77.9 ? 3% | 82.8 ? 9% | 67.5 ? -11% | 67.3 ? -11% | ||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 61 ? | 64.8 ? 6% | 71.3 ? 17% | 46.7 ? -23% | 55.7 ? -9% |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 35.1 °C / 95 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 36.3 °C / 97 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
Samsung Galaxy S10 Lite audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 30% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.9% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 39% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 54% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 58% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 35% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Huawei P30 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 17.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.3% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.8% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 36% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 56% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 55% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 37% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0.01 / 0.27 Watt |
| Ocioso |  0.58 / 1.55 / 1.64 Watt |
| Carga |
4.29 / 8.03 Watt |
    
| |
| Samsung Galaxy S10 Lite 4500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S10 3400 mAh | Huawei P30 3650 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9 3300 mAh | LG G8s ThinQ 3550 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -3% | -21% | 4% | -35% | -18% | -16% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.58 | 0.61 -5% | 0.69 -19% | 0.67 -16% | 1.2 -107% | 0.939 ? -62% | 0.897 ? -55% |
| Idle Average * | 1.55 | 1.27 18% | 2.41 -55% | 1.26 19% | 1.6 -3% | 1.506 ? 3% | 1.452 ? 6% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.64 | 1.3 21% | 2.51 -53% | 1.29 21% | 2 -22% | 1.799 ? -10% | 1.629 ? 1% |
| Load Average * | 4.29 | 6.17 -44% | 3.86 10% | 3.71 14% | 5 -17% | 4.61 ? -7% | 5.55 ? -29% |
| Load Maximum * | 8.03 | 8.55 -6% | 6.96 13% | 9.3 -16% | 10 -25% | 9.04 ? -13% | 8.31 ? -3% |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy S10 Lite 4500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S10 3400 mAh | Huawei P30 3650 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9 3300 mAh | LG G8s ThinQ 3550 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -38% | -14% | -24% | -24% | |
| Reader / Idle | 2504 | 1259 -50% | 1914 -24% | 1650 -34% | 1689 -33% |
| H.264 | 1183 | 842 -29% | 1050 -11% | 1008 -15% | 753 -36% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 823 | 427 -48% | 715 -13% | 546 -34% | 693 -16% |
| Load | 222 | 170 -23% | 208 -6% | 194 -13% | 203 -9% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto - Poder, Finalmente
O Samsung Galaxy S10 Lite é mais do que aparenta, já que não é apenas uma versão barata dos modelos S10 nominalmente mais caros. Primeiro e acima de tudo, agora é finalmente capaz de fornecer uma duração convincente de bateria, algo que se deve principalmente à bateria grande, mas também, em parte, ao fato de um processador Exynos não ser mais usado. Nesta categoria principal, nenhum dos irmãos do suposto modelo Lite consegue parecer muito bom em comparação.
No entanto, alguns compromissos tiveram que ser feitos, resultando na menor resolução de tela do S10 Lite em comparação com os dispositivos carros-chefes e na omissão de padrões de comunicação modernos, como Wi-Fi 6 ou 5G. Além disso, o fabricante coreano retirou o recurso de áudio duplo Bluetooth e o carregamento sem fio.
Embora o Galaxy S10 Lite possa não ser o melhor modelo Galaxy S10, ele tem mais energia. Isso torna fácil aceitar a falta de alguns recursos.
Quanto à câmera, a Samsung escolheu um caminho diferente que ilumina a natureza mais barata do telefone. Embora a resolução da câmera do S10 Lite seja mais alta, a qualidade da imagem das câmeras fica aquém da dos outros modelos S10 com uma abertura modular. Da mesma forma, houve recortes quando se trata da câmera frontal, pois as contagens altas de megapixels foram priorizadas em relação à qualidade e não há foco automático. Embora o OIS Super Steady seja decente, a degradação da qualidade da imagem é muito alta. No geral, a qualidade da câmera da S10 Lite ainda é boa, embora seja claramente incapaz de enfrentar seus irmãos mais avançados.
A Samsung não oferece aos compradores em potencial uma escolha fácil, principalmente aos preços atuais. Embora o Galaxy S10 seja simplesmente mais barato, desaconselhamos o S10e a seu preço atual. O Galaxy S10 Lite já pode ser a escolha certa para usuários interessados em uma tela grande e, em particular, na duração da bateria muito longa e também menos encantados com os recursos avançados dos outros modelos. Para todos os outros, recomendamos que você tenha paciência por alguns meses, pois esse smartphone provavelmente cairá de preço e provavelmente estará em oferta por menos de US$ 500 em um futuro próximo.
Samsung Galaxy S10 Lite
-
09/03/2022 v7
Daniel Schmidt
Pricecompare
