C 2018
Notebookcheck

Breve Análise do Smartphone CUBOT R11

Florian Wimmer, 👁 Florian Schmitt, Tanja Hinum-Balaz (traduzido por Ricardo Soto), 08/02/2018

Cheap and shiny. O CUBOT R11 é um dispositivo de orçamento que tem muito a oferecer. O Android puro, uma bateria removível, um scanner de digitais e câmeras duplas traseiras por menos de €100 parece uma ótima oferta. Descubra nesta análise se o CUBOT R11 está à altura das expectativas.

Cubot R11
Processador
Mediatek MT6580M
Placa gráfica
ARM Mali-400 MP2
Memória
2048 MB 
Pantalha
5.5 polegadas 2:1, 1440 x 720 pixel 293 PPI, Tela táctil capacitiva, IPS, Brilhante: sim
Disco rígido
16 GB eMMC Flash, 16 GB 
, 12.8 GB livre
Conexões
1 USB 2.0, Conexões Audio: Conector de 3,5 mm, Card Reader: Cartões microSD de até 64 GB, 1 Leitor de Impressões Digitais, Brightness Sensor, Sensores: Acelerômetro, sensor de luz ambiente, G-sensor, sensor de digitais, sensor de proximidade
Funcionamento em rede
802.11 b/g/n (b/g/n), Bluetooth 4.0, GSM: 850, 900, 1,800, 1,900 MHz. UMTS: 850, 900, 1,700, 1,900, 2,100 MHz., Dual SIM, GPS
Tamanho
altura x largura x profundidade (em mm): 8.85 x 150.3 x 71.4
Bateria
10.64 Wh, 2800 mAh Lítio-Ion, removeable
Sistema Operativo
Android 8.1 Oreo
Camera
Primary Camera: 13 MPix , f/2.4, Contrast Autofocus, LED flash. 2 MP depth of field sensor
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix foco fixo, LED flash
Características adicionais
Alto falantes: Alto-falante mono no lado inferior do dispositivo, Teclado: Teclado virtual, Carregador, cabo USB, capa protetora, FM Radio, fanless
peso
166 g, Suprimento de energia: 56 g
Preço
99 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

CUBOT R11
CUBOT R11
CUBOT R11
CUBOT R11
CUBOT R11
CUBOT R11

Size Comparison

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=278)
198 MBit/s ∼100% +286%
Cubot R11
Mali-400 MP2, MT6580M, 16 GB eMMC Flash
51.3 MBit/s ∼26%
Nokia 1
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6737, 8 GB eMMC Flash
49.1 MBit/s ∼25% -4%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A
Adreno 308, 425, 16 GB eMMC Flash
47.1 MBit/s ∼24% -8%
Blackview A20
Mali-400 MP2, MT6580M, 8 GB eMMC Flash
44.4 MBit/s ∼22% -13%
Lenovo Moto E4
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6737, 16 GB eMMC Flash
43.1 MBit/s ∼22% -16%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=278)
194 MBit/s ∼100% +264%
Cubot R11
Mali-400 MP2, MT6580M, 16 GB eMMC Flash
53.3 MBit/s ∼27%
Nokia 1
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6737, 8 GB eMMC Flash
51.2 MBit/s ∼26% -4%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A
Adreno 308, 425, 16 GB eMMC Flash
49 MBit/s ∼25% -8%
Lenovo Moto E4
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6737, 16 GB eMMC Flash
46.1 MBit/s ∼24% -14%
Blackview A20
Mali-400 MP2, MT6580M, 8 GB eMMC Flash
46 MBit/s ∼24% -14%
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 – Overview
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 – Overview
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 – Wooded area
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 – Wooded area
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 – Bridge
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 – Bridge
GPS test: CUBOT R11 - Overview
GPS test: CUBOT R11 - Overview
GPS test: CUBOT R11 – Wooded area
GPS test: CUBOT R11 – Wooded area
GPS test: CUBOT R11 – Bridge
GPS test: CUBOT R11 – Bridge

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.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
click to load images
357
cd/m²
435
cd/m²
471
cd/m²
349
cd/m²
428
cd/m²
419
cd/m²
339
cd/m²
398
cd/m²
413
cd/m²
Distribuição do brilho
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Máximo: 471 cd/m² Médio: 401 cd/m² Minimum: 16.58 cd/m²
iluminação: 72 %
iluminação com acumulador: 428 cd/m²
Contraste: 486:1 (Preto: 0.88 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.29 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.3
ΔE Greyscale 6.9 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
89.7% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.718
Cubot R11
IPS, 1440x720, 5.5
Blackview A20
IPS, 960x480, 5.5
Xiaomi Redmi 5A
IPS, 1280x720, 5
Lenovo Moto E4
IPS, 1280x720, 5
Nokia 1
IPS, 854x480, 4.5
Screen
-18%
20%
53%
54%
Brightness middle
428
364
-15%
503
18%
488
14%
256
-40%
Brightness
401
375
-6%
499
24%
474
18%
251
-37%
Brightness Distribution
72
90
25%
84
17%
87
21%
89
24%
Black Level *
0.88
0.71
19%
0.73
17%
0.3
66%
0.12
86%
Contrast
486
513
6%
689
42%
1627
235%
2133
339%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
6.29
10.12
-61%
5.44
14%
5.4
14%
4.82
23%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
13.2
19.63
-49%
10.01
24%
9
32%
11.75
11%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
6.9
11.1
-61%
6.8
1%
5.5
20%
5.2
25%
Gamma
2.718 81%
2.722 81%
2.451 90%
2.27 97%
2.3 96%
CCT
7296 89%
10121 64%
6590 99%
7397 88%
7107 91%

* ... smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

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 not detected

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8689 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Display Response Times

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
28 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 15 ms rise
↘ 13 ms fall
The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 59 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (25.7 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
42 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 21 ms rise
↘ 21 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 53 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (41.1 ms).
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Cubot R11
23275 Points ∼32%
Blackview A20
24802 Points ∼34% +7%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A
36883 Points ∼51% +58%
Lenovo Moto E4
30856 Points ∼42% +33%
Nokia 1
Points ∼0% -100%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (15185 - 25237, n=10)
22450 Points ∼31% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (23275 - 250848, n=366)
72912 Points ∼100% +213%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Cubot R11
19465 Points ∼17%
Blackview A20
19581 Points ∼18% +1%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A
43861 Points ∼39% +125%
Nokia 1
Points ∼0% -100%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (17073 - 21088, n=4)
19302 Points ∼17% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (17073 - 348178, n=145)
111758 Points ∼100% +474%
PCMark for Android - Work performance score (sort by value)
Cubot R11
2516 Points ∼53%
Blackview A20
2696 Points ∼56% +7%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A
4559 Points ∼95% +81%
Lenovo Moto E4
3518 Points ∼74% +40%
Nokia 1
3054 Points ∼64% +21%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (2516 - 3041, n=10)
2719 Points ∼57% +8%
Average of class Smartphone (4147 - 13211, n=395)
4782 Points ∼100% +90%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Cubot R11
10 Points ∼1%
Blackview A20
580 Points ∼80% +5700%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A
723 Points ∼100% +7130%
Lenovo Moto E4
617 Points ∼85% +6070%
Nokia 1
571 Points ∼79% +5610%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (9 - 640, n=10)
404 Points ∼56% +3940%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1731, n=471)
680 Points ∼94% +6700%
Graphics (sort by value)
Cubot R11
136 Points ∼8%
Blackview A20
145 Points ∼9% +7%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A
444 Points ∼27% +226%
Lenovo Moto E4
208 Points ∼13% +53%
Nokia 1
176 Points ∼11% +29%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (136 - 145, n=10)
140 Points ∼9% +3%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 15875, n=471)
1622 Points ∼100% +1093%
Memory (sort by value)
Cubot R11
346 Points ∼30%
Blackview A20
376 Points ∼32% +9%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A
762 Points ∼65% +120%
Lenovo Moto E4
576 Points ∼49% +66%
Nokia 1
505 Points ∼43% +46%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (189 - 404, n=10)
332 Points ∼28% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 4798, n=471)
1171 Points ∼100% +238%
System (sort by value)
Cubot R11
958 Points ∼40%
Blackview A20
969 Points ∼41% +1%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A
1463 Points ∼62% +53%
Lenovo Moto E4
1077 Points ∼46% +12%
Nokia 1
859 Points ∼36% -10%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (958 - 1011, n=10)
980 Points ∼41% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 12202, n=471)
2367 Points ∼100% +147%
Overall (sort by value)
Cubot R11
144 Points ∼12%
Blackview A20
418 Points ∼35% +190%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A
774 Points ∼65% +438%
Lenovo Moto E4
531 Points ∼45% +269%
Nokia 1
457 Points ∼39% +217%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (144 - 432, n=10)
323 Points ∼27% +124%
Average of class Smartphone (150 - 6097, n=475)
1185 Points ∼100% +723%
Geekbench 4.1/4.2
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Cubot R11
836 Points ∼20%
Blackview A20
858 Points ∼20% +3%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A
1333 Points ∼32% +59%
Lenovo Moto E4
938 Points ∼22% +12%
Nokia 1
943 Points ∼23% +13%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (773 - 875, n=4)
836 Points ∼20% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (836 - 14417, n=170)
4186 Points ∼100% +401%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Cubot R11
1131 Points ∼27%
Blackview A20
1160 Points ∼28% +3%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A
1874 Points ∼45% +66%
Lenovo Moto E4
1532 Points ∼37% +35%
Nokia 1
1252 Points ∼30% +11%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (1131 - 1237, n=4)
1166 Points ∼28% +3%
Average of class Smartphone (1099 - 11598, n=220)
4163 Points ∼100% +268%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Cubot R11
394 Points ∼32%
Blackview A20
427 Points ∼35% +8%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A
681 Points ∼55% +73%
Lenovo Moto E4
530 Points ∼43% +35%
Nokia 1
492 Points ∼40% +25%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (394 - 431, n=4)
419 Points ∼34% +6%
Average of class Smartphone (394 - 4824, n=221)
1229 Points ∼100% +212%
3DMark
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Cubot R11
7498 Points ∼60%
Blackview A20
8200 Points ∼66% +9%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A
10556 Points ∼84% +41%
Lenovo Moto E4
8266 Points ∼66% +10%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (7498 - 8913, n=10)
7999 Points ∼64% +7%
Average of class Smartphone (7095 - 36762, n=511)
12516 Points ∼100% +67%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Cubot R11
2433 Points ∼14%
Blackview A20
2470 Points ∼15% +2%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A
5532 Points ∼33% +127%
Lenovo Moto E4
3168 Points ∼19% +30%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (2396 - 2485, n=10)
2463 Points ∼15% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (2465 - 160199, n=511)
16923 Points ∼100% +596%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Cubot R11
2863 Points ∼20%
Blackview A20
2924 Points ∼20% +2%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A
6186 Points ∼43% +116%
Lenovo Moto E4
3671 Points ∼26% +28%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (2841 - 2946, n=10)
2910 Points ∼20% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (2915 - 77599, n=512)
14348 Points ∼100% +401%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Cubot R11
4.1 fps ∼14%
Blackview A20
4.4 fps ∼15% +7%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A
7.7 fps ∼26% +88%
Lenovo Moto E4
6 fps ∼20% +46%
Nokia 1
5.1 fps ∼17% +24%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (4.1 - 11, n=10)
5 fps ∼17% +22%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 251, n=537)
29.5 fps ∼100% +620%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Cubot R11
6.9 fps ∼29%
Blackview A20
10 fps ∼41% +45%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A
14 fps ∼58% +103%
Lenovo Moto E4
11 fps ∼45% +59%
Nokia 1
14 fps ∼58% +103%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (4.4 - 12, n=10)
8.57 fps ∼35% +24%
Average of class Smartphone (6.9 - 120, n=540)
24.2 fps ∼100% +251%

Legend

 
Cubot R11 Mediatek MT6580M, ARM Mali-400 MP2, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Blackview A20 Mediatek MT6580M, ARM Mali-400 MP2, 8 GB eMMC Flash
 
Xiaomi Redmi 5A Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Qualcomm Adreno 308, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Lenovo Moto E4 Mediatek MT6737, ARM Mali-T720 MP2, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Nokia 1 Mediatek MT6737, ARM Mali-T720 MP2, 8 GB eMMC Flash
JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 273, n=394)
35.4 Points ∼100% +192%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A (Chrome 67)
17.927 Points ∼51% +48%
Lenovo Moto E4 (Chrome 60)
14.57 Points ∼41% +20%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (10.8 - 14.5, n=10)
13.2 Points ∼37% +9%
Cubot R11 (Chrome 67)
12.124 Points ∼34%
Nokia 1 (Chrome 66)
11.55 Points ∼33% -5%
Blackview A20 (Chrome 67)
11.351 Points ∼32% -6%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 43280, n=530)
5305 Points ∼100% +147%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A (Chrome 67)
3224 Points ∼61% +50%
Lenovo Moto E4 (Chrome 60)
2270 Points ∼43% +6%
Cubot R11 (Chrome 67)
2144 Points ∼40%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (1645 - 2280, n=10)
2066 Points ∼39% -4%
Nokia 1 (Chrome 66)
1907 Points ∼36% -11%
Blackview A20 (Chrome 67)
1769 Points ∼33% -17%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Cubot R11 (Chrome 67)
21256.7 ms * ∼100%
Blackview A20 (Chrome 67)
19213 ms * ∼90% +10%
Nokia 1 (Chrome 66)
18927 ms * ∼89% +11%
Lenovo Moto E4 (Chrome 60)
17184.6 ms * ∼81% +19%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (14579 - 21257, n=10)
16774 ms * ∼79% +21%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A (Chrome 67)
13112.2 ms * ∼62% +38%
Average of class Smartphone (603 - 59466, n=549)
11710 ms * ∼55% +45%

* ... smaller is better

Cubot R11Blackview A20Xiaomi Redmi 5ALenovo Moto E4Nokia 1Average 16 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-12%
293%
215%
13%
141%
216%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
6.38 (Kingston 32GB)
11.2 (Kingston 32GB)
76%
62.6 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
881%
44.9
604%
36.8 (6.38 - 65.4, n=108)
477%
44.7 (3.4 - 87.1, n=301)
601%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
10.8 (Kingston 32GB)
20.6 (Kingston 32GB)
91%
84.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
686%
65.4
506%
55.5 (10.8 - 87.7, n=108)
414%
63 (8.2 - 96.5, n=301)
483%
Random Write 4KB
10.8
3.4
-69%
9.28
-14%
29.2
170%
9.1
-16%
7.32 (0.49 - 37.9, n=223)
-32%
14.8 (0.14 - 164, n=580)
37%
Random Read 4KB
22.1
11.3
-49%
42.32
91%
18.7
-15%
25.7
16%
19.7 (2.49 - 61.7, n=223)
-11%
36.4 (1.59 - 173, n=580)
65%
Sequential Write 256KB
52
8
-85%
49.86
-4%
45.3
-13%
51.8
0%
41.5 (8.74 - 97.6, n=223)
-20%
75.8 (2.99 - 242, n=580)
46%
Sequential Read 256KB
135.8
90.2
-34%
293.76
116%
187.6
38%
208.3
53%
157 (9.66 - 294, n=223)
16%
222 (12.1 - 895, n=580)
63%
Carga Máxima
 39.5 °C32.8 °C31.8 °C 
 41.2 °C32.7 °C32.8 °C 
 39.7 °C32.7 °C32.1 °C 
Máximo: 41.2 °C
Médio: 35 °C
31.9 °C32.8 °C39.5 °C
32.1 °C32.5 °C40.3 °C
32.1 °C33.2 °C39.1 °C
Máximo: 40.3 °C
Médio: 34.8 °C
alimentação elétrica  39.5 °C | Temperatura do quarto 22 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2032.731.32530.136.23130.530.24031.132.55033.739.66326.735.78024.229.710022.924.112519.422.716018.11920017.721.825016.526.731514.236.140013.647.650013.752.363012.457.180012.462.610001266.312501265.4160011.564.6200011.663.5250011.465.3315011.368.2400011.370.6500011.371.2630011.558.8800011.543.91000011.557.11250011.458.71600011.344.7SPL67.452.324.278N19.48.80.637.5median 12median 57.1Delta1.614.32727.825.927.629.532.231.428.732.634.224.123.223.122.724.123.117.21916.623.616.833.216.438.714.147.513.85713.662.712.163.311.564.211.566.911.265.511.263.511.264.711.26511.166.211.266.111.266.711.465.211.466.811.360.811.450.311.441.86023.977.113.70.539.7median 11.4median 63.31.811.5hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseCubot R11Xiaomi Redmi 5A
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Cubot R11 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (78 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 32% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.4% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.8% higher than median
(-) | highs are not linear (15.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (30.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 82% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 11% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 89% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 7% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Xiaomi Redmi 5A audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (77.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 32.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 1.9% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 24% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 66% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 54% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 38% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Consumo de energia
desligadodarklight 0 / 0.1 Watt
Ociosodarkmidlight 0.9 / 1.5 / 2.2 Watt
Carga midlight 4.6 / 6 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Cubot R11
2800 mAh
Blackview A20
3000 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi 5A
3000 mAh
Lenovo Moto E4
2800 mAh
Nokia 1
2150 mAh
Average Mediatek MT6580M
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-8%
8%
2%
12%
-1%
3%
Idle Minimum *
0.9
1.1
-22%
1.2
-33%
0.87
3%
0.9
-0%
0.816 (0.56 - 1.1, n=10)
9%
0.884 (0.2 - 3.4, n=612)
2%
Idle Average *
1.5
1.5
-0%
1.5
-0%
2.38
-59%
1.5
-0%
1.76 (1.36 - 2.26, n=10)
-17%
1.725 (0.6 - 6.2, n=611)
-15%
Idle Maximum *
2.2
2.3
-5%
1.8
18%
2.47
-12%
2
9%
2.11 (1.38 - 2.39, n=10)
4%
1.997 (0.74 - 6.6, n=612)
9%
Load Average *
4.6
4.8
-4%
2.9
37%
2.63
43%
3.5
24%
4.85 (3.11 - 6.97, n=10)
-5%
4.03 (0.8 - 10.8, n=606)
12%
Load Maximum *
6
6.5
-8%
4.8
20%
3.86
36%
4.3
28%
5.69 (3.59 - 7.03, n=10)
5%
5.7 (1.2 - 14.2, n=606)
5%

* ... smaller is better

Tempo de Execução da Bateria
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
10h 33min
Cubot R11
2800 mAh
Blackview A20
3000 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi 5A
3000 mAh
Lenovo Moto E4
2800 mAh
Nokia 1
2150 mAh
Battery Runtime
-12%
59%
-18%
-13%
Reader / Idle
1302
WiFi v1.3
633
556
-12%
1009
59%
522
-18%
552
-13%
Load
316
H.264
608

Pro

+ Carcaça estável
+ Longa duração da bateria
+ Bateria removível

Contra

- Desempenho pobre
- Alto-falante fraco
- Tela de baixo contraste
- Sem garantia da fabricante
The CUBOT R11 in review.
The CUBOT R11 in review.

O CUBOT R11 é um dispositivo de menos de €100 que impressiona com sua carcaça robusta e longa duração da bateria. No entanto, agora há muitos dispositivos com preços semelhantes que oferecem mais potência, melhores câmeras e suporte para LTE. No lado positivo, o CUBOT R11 tem uma bateria substituível, uma relação de aspecto de 2:1 e dimensões compactas, a última das quais beneficiará aqueles com mãos menores. 

O CUBOT R11 é um smartphone de baixo custo que tem boa duração de bateria, uma bateria substituível e uma carcaça robusta. No entanto, um SoC mais poderoso teria feito maravilhas.

No geral, o CUBOT R11 é um típico smartphone de nível básico que se sai bem em algumas áreas, mas em outras nem tanto.

Cubot R11 - 07/26/2018 v6
Florian Wimmer

Acabamento
70%
Teclado
65 / 75 → 87%
Mouse
79%
Conectividade
32 / 60 → 53%
Peso
91%
Bateria
93%
Pantalha
77%
Desempenho do jogos
4 / 63 → 7%
Desempenho da aplicação
21 / 70 → 30%
Temperatura
89%
Ruído
100%
Audio
47 / 91 → 52%
Camera
45%
Médio
63%
74%
Smartphone - Médio equilibrado

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Análises e revisões de portáteis e celulares > Análises > Análises > Breve Análise do Smartphone CUBOT R11
Florian Wimmer, 2018-08- 2 (Update: 2018-08- 5)