Breve Análise do Smartphone Lenovo Moto C

Name: Lenovo Moto C
Brand: Lenovo

Novo aparelho go-to no segmento de baixo orçamento? O fabricante chinês Lenovo está tentando estimular o segmento de baixo orçamento do mercado de smartphones com sua nova série C. Descubra se a empresa terá sucesso em nossa análise.

Marcus Herbrich, ✓ Tanja Hinum (traduzido por Ricardo Soto), Published 09/07/2017 🇺🇸 🇩🇪 ...

Android Touchscreen Smartphone

Test device courtesy of Lenovo Deutschland

Download your licensed rating image as PNG / SVG

Lenovo Moto C (Moto C Serie)

Processador

Mediatek MT6737 4 x 1.1 GHz, Cortex-A53

Placa gráfica

ARM Mali-T720

Memória

1024 MB

Pantalha

5.00 polegadas 16:9, 854 x 480 pixel 196 PPI, capacitiva, LCD, TFT, capacitive, Brilhante: sim

Disco rígido

16 GB eMMC Flash, 16 GB

, 10.4 GB livre

Conexões

1 USB 2.0, Conexões Audio: conector de áudio de 3,5 mm, Card Reader: microSD de até 32 GB, Sensores: acelerômetro, Miracast

Funcionamento em rede

802.11 b/g/n (b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/), Bluetooth 4.2, GSM / GPRS / EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz) UMTS / HSPA+ (850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz) 4G LTE (1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 38, 40), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS

Tamanho

altura x largura x profundidade (em mm): 9 x 145.5 x 73.6

Bateria

2350 mAh Lítio-Polímero, removeable

Sistema Operativo

Android 7.0 Nougat

Camera

Primary Camera: 5 MPix ƒ / 2.4 aperture, 1.4 µm 74° lens, fixed focus, LED flash, Burst Mode, Panorama, HDR video: 720p (30 fps), image processing
Secondary Camera: 2 MPix f / 2.8 aperture, 1.0 µm 63° lens, fixed focus, LED flash, Burst Mode, HDR image processing

Características adicionais

Alto falantes: mono, Teclado: virtual, Fonte de alimentação modular, cabo USB, Lenovo UI, SAR: 0.644 W/kg (head) , fanless

peso

154 g

Preço

85 Euro

Links

Lenovo página inicial
Lenovo Seção de notebook

Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

see all specifications

Size Comparison

Networking
iperf3 transmit AX12
HTC U11 Adreno 540, SD 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	639 MBit/s +1254%
Lenovo C2 Mali-T720 MP2, MT6735, 8 GB eMMC Flash	53.3 MBit/s +13%
Gretel A9 Mali-T720 MP2, MT6737, 16 GB eMMC Flash	51.4 MBit/s +9%
ZTE Blade A510 Mali-T720, MT6735P, 8 GB eMMC Flash	47.9 MBit/s +1%
Lenovo Moto C Mali-T720, MT6737, 16 GB eMMC Flash	47.2 MBit/s
iperf3 receive AX12
HTC U11 Adreno 540, SD 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	394 MBit/s +802%
Lenovo C2 Mali-T720 MP2, MT6735, 8 GB eMMC Flash	50.5 MBit/s +16%
ZTE Blade A510 Mali-T720, MT6735P, 8 GB eMMC Flash	48.7 MBit/s +11%
Lenovo Moto C Mali-T720, MT6737, 16 GB eMMC Flash	43.7 MBit/s
Gretel A9 Mali-T720 MP2, MT6737, 16 GB eMMC Flash	42.3 MBit/s -3%

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 1 Scene 2 Scene 3

click to load images

click to load images

click to load images


342 cd/m²	354 cd/m²	371 cd/m²
340 cd/m²	364 cd/m²	360 cd/m²
345 cd/m²	361 cd/m²	361 cd/m²

Distribuição do brilho

LCD tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2

Máximo: 371 cd/m² (Nits) Médio: 355.3 cd/m² Minimum: 6.34 cd/m²
iluminação: 92 %
iluminação com acumulador: 364 cd/m²
Contraste: 1174:1 (Preto: 0.31 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 10.4 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 12.7 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
89.5% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.04

	Lenovo Moto C TFT, 854x480, 5.00	ZTE Blade A510 IPS, 1280x720, 5.00	Archos 50 Platinum 4G IPS, 1280x720, 5.00	Huawei Y5 II IPS, 1280x720, 5.00	Lenovo C2 IPS, 1280x720, 5.00	Gretel A9 IPS, 1280x720, 5.00	Ulefone Metal IPS, 1280x720, 5.00	HTC U11 Super LCD5, 2560x1440, 5.50
Screen		16%	-4%	-13%	20%	5%	-8%	38%
Brightness middle	364	528 45%	344 -5%	465 28%	458 26%	380 4%	312 -14%	482 32%
Brightness	355	524 48%	349 -2%	443 25%	449 26%	370 4%	315 -11%	472 33%
Brightness Distribution	92	94 2%	89 -3%	90 -2%	92 0%	90 -2%	87 -5%	90 -2%
Black Level *	0.31	0.62 -100%	0.65 -110%	0.84 -171%	0.35 -13%	0.39 -26%	0.56 -81%	0.33 -6%
Contrast	1174	852 -27%	529 -55%	554 -53%	1309 11%	974 -17%	557 -53%	1461 24%
Colorchecker dE 2000 *	10.4	5.2 50%	5.8 44%	7.8 25%	6.5 37%	8 23%	6.8 35%	3.2 69%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *	18	8.7 52%	10.7 41%	15.7 13%	11.7 35%	13.6 24%	14 22%	5.4 70%
Greyscale dE 2000 *	12.7	5.7 55%	5.7 55%	8.4 34%	7.7 39%	8.5 33%	7.1 44%	2.2 83%
Gamma	2.04 ^108%	1.99 ^111%	2.1 ^105%	2.07 ^106%	2.15 ^102%	2.8 ^79%	2.77 ^79%	2.22 ^99%
CCT	12904 ^50%	6631 ^98%	7792 ^83%	8438 ^77%	8518 ^76%	8337 ^78%	7402 ^88%	6581 ^99%

* ... smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

ℹ

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 17900 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

Display Response Times

ℹ

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
86 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 66 ms rise
86 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 18 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 100 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (21.5 ms).
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
94 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 52 ms rise
94 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 42 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 100 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms).

AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C	25338 Points
ZTE Blade A510	24338 Points -4%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G	23657 Points -7%
Huawei Y5 II	23795 Points -6%
Lenovo C2	23825 Points -6%
Gretel A9	29237 Points +15%
Ulefone Metal	37103 Points +46%
HTC U11	175032 Points +591%

PCMark for Android
Work performance score (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C	2877 Points
ZTE Blade A510	2675 Points -7%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G	2807 Points -2%
Huawei Y5 II	3237 Points +13%
Lenovo C2	1908 Points -34%
Gretel A9	3293 Points +14%
Ulefone Metal	4079 Points +42%
HTC U11	8295 Points +188%
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C	2313 Points
ZTE Blade A510	2109 Points -9%
Gretel A9	2436 Points +5%
HTC U11	6828 Points +195%

BaseMark OS II
Overall (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C	432 Points
ZTE Blade A510	141 Points -67%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G	148 Points -66%
Huawei Y5 II	183 Points -58%
Lenovo C2	147 Points -66%
Gretel A9	176 Points -59%
Ulefone Metal	273 Points -37%
HTC U11	3034 Points +602%
System (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C	883 Points
ZTE Blade A510	829 Points -6%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G	838 Points -5%
Huawei Y5 II	1094 Points +24%
Lenovo C2	826 Points -6%
Gretel A9	1030 Points +17%
Ulefone Metal	1691 Points +92%
HTC U11	5570 Points +531%
Memory (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C	419 Points
ZTE Blade A510	285 Points -32%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G	354 Points -16%
Huawei Y5 II	375 Points -11%
Lenovo C2	332 Points -21%
Gretel A9	468 Points +12%
Ulefone Metal	802 Points +91%
HTC U11	2085 Points +398%
Graphics (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C	177 Points
ZTE Blade A510	174 Points -2%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G	175 Points -1%
Huawei Y5 II	283 Points +60%
Lenovo C2	177 Points 0%
Gretel A9	209 Points +18%
Ulefone Metal	433 Points +145%
HTC U11	5976 Points +3276%
Web (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C	534 Points
ZTE Blade A510	10 Points -98%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G	9 Points -98%
Huawei Y5 II	10 Points -98%
Lenovo C2	9 Points -98%
Gretel A9	10 Points -98%
Ulefone Metal	10 Points -98%
HTC U11	1221 Points +129%

Geekbench 4.4
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C	450 Points
Gretel A9	537 Points +19%
HTC U11	1906 Points +324%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C	1254 Points
Gretel A9	1468 Points +17%
HTC U11	6443 Points +414%

3DMark
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C	3142 Points
ZTE Blade A510	3109 Points -1%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G	3103 Points -1%
Huawei Y5 II	Points -100%
Lenovo C2	Points -100%
Gretel A9	3744 Points +19%
Ulefone Metal	7059 Points +125%
HTC U11	40014 Points +1174%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C	2706 Points
ZTE Blade A510	2682 Points -1%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G	2681 Points -1%
Huawei Y5 II	Points -100%
Gretel A9	3235 Points +20%
Ulefone Metal	6469 Points +139%
HTC U11	55725 Points +1959%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C	7209 Points
ZTE Blade A510	7025 Points -3%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G	6902 Points -4%
Huawei Y5 II	Points -100%
Gretel A9	8339 Points +16%
Ulefone Metal	10371 Points +44%
HTC U11	20140 Points +179%

GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C	13 fps
ZTE Blade A510	8.5 fps -35%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G	4.9 fps -62%
Huawei Y5 II	15 fps +15%
Lenovo C2	8.5 fps -35%
Gretel A9	10 fps -23%
Ulefone Metal	12 fps -8%
HTC U11	58 fps +346%
1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C	5.1 fps
ZTE Blade A510	4.9 fps -4%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G	8.7 fps +71%
Huawei Y5 II	8.4 fps +65%
Lenovo C2	5 fps -2%
Gretel A9	6 fps +18%
Ulefone Metal	19 fps +273%
HTC U11	91 fps +1684%

GFXBench 3.0
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C	7.8 fps
ZTE Blade A510	3.5 fps -55%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G	1.2 fps -85%
Huawei Y5 II	6.1 fps -22%
Lenovo C2	3.7 fps -53%
Gretel A9	4.5 fps -42%
Ulefone Metal	6.4 fps -18%
HTC U11	29 fps +272%
1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C	1.6 fps
Archos 50 Platinum 4G	3.6 fps +125%
Huawei Y5 II	fps -100%
Lenovo C2	fps -100%
Gretel A9	2.2 fps +38%
Ulefone Metal	2.9 fps +81%
HTC U11	51 fps +3088%

GFXBench 3.1
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C	1.2 fps
ZTE Blade A510	2.5 fps +108%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G	1.2 fps 0%
Huawei Y5 II	fps -100%
Lenovo C2	2.7 fps +125%
Gretel A9	3.2 fps +167%
Ulefone Metal	4.5 fps +275%
HTC U11	15 fps +1150%
1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C	5.5 fps
ZTE Blade A510	1.1 fps -80%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G	2.7 fps -51%
Huawei Y5 II	fps -100%
Lenovo C2	1.2 fps -78%
Gretel A9	1.4 fps -75%
Ulefone Metal	8.9 fps +62%
HTC U11	33 fps +500%

Epic Citadel - Ultra High Quality (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C	36.6 fps
HTC U11	60 fps +64%

Legend

Lenovo Moto C Mediatek MT6737, ARM Mali-T720, 16 GB eMMC Flash

ZTE Blade A510 Mediatek MT6735P, ARM Mali-T720, 8 GB eMMC Flash

Archos 50 Platinum 4G Mediatek MT6735, ARM Mali-T720, 8 GB eMMC Flash

Huawei Y5 II Mediatek MT6735, ARM Mali-T720 MP2, 8 GB eMMC Flash

Lenovo C2 Mediatek MT6735, ARM Mali-T720 MP2, 8 GB eMMC Flash

Gretel A9 Mediatek MT6737, ARM Mali-T720 MP2, 16 GB eMMC Flash

Ulefone Metal Mediatek MT6753, ARM Mali-T720, 16 GB eMMC Flash

HTC U11 Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

JetStream 1.1 | Octane V2 | Mozilla Kraken 1.1 | WebXPRT 2015

JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
HTC U11 (Chrome 58)	69.5 Points +495%
Huawei Y5 II (Chrome 50)	18.47 Points +58%
Ulefone Metal (Chrome Version 52)	17.83 Points +53%
Gretel A9 (Chrome 58)	16.2 Points +39%
Lenovo C2 (Chrome 55)	13.5 Points +16%
ZTE Blade A510 (Chrome Version 56)	12.78 Points +9%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G (Chrome Browser Version 52)	12.76 Points +9%
Lenovo Moto C (Chrome Version 60)	11.68 Points

Octane V2 - Total Score
HTC U11 (Chrome 58)	11781 Points +581%
Ulefone Metal (Chrome Version 52)	2738 Points +58%
Huawei Y5 II (Chrome 50)	2707 Points +56%
Gretel A9 (Chrome 58)	2392 Points +38%
Lenovo C2 (Chrome 55)	2159 Points +25%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G (Chrome Browser Version 52)	2122 Points +23%
ZTE Blade A510 (Chrome Version 56)	2102 Points +22%
Lenovo Moto C (Chrome Version 60)	1730 Points

Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total
Lenovo Moto C (Chrome Version 60)	19879 ms *
Archos 50 Platinum 4G (Chrome Browser Version 52)	19092 ms * +4%
ZTE Blade A510 (Chrome Version 56)	17364 ms * +13%
Lenovo C2 (Chrome 55)	16585 ms * +17%
Gretel A9 (Chrome 58)	15146 ms * +24%
Ulefone Metal (Chrome Version 52)	13397 ms * +33%
Huawei Y5 II (Chrome 50)	12505 ms * +37%
HTC U11 (Chrome 58)	2760 ms * +86%

WebXPRT 2015 - Overall
HTC U11 (Chrome 58)	162 Points +315%
Lenovo Moto C (Chrome Version 60)	39 Points

* ... smaller is better

	Lenovo Moto C	ZTE Blade A510	Archos 50 Platinum 4G	Huawei Y5 II	Lenovo C2	Gretel A9	Ulefone Metal	HTC U11
AndroBench 3-5		-9%	-2%	23%	-11%	18%	73%	406%
Sequential Read 256KB	179.3	111.9 -38%	125.4 -30%	173.3 -3%	120.7 -33%	176.2 -2%	228.8 28%	717 300%
Sequential Write 256KB	44.55	9.94 -78%	7.56 -83%	21.6 -52%	8 -82%	44.5 0%	39.91 -10%	206.4 363%
Random Read 4KB	18.37	14.03 -24%	14.31 -22%	27.3 49%	14.5 -21%	18.1 -1%	22.18 21%	91.4 398%
Random Write 4KB	10.9	4.69 -57%	4.35 -60%	6 -45%	4.7 -57%	10.1 -7%	7.87 -28%	80 634%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard	13.5	25.55 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M401) 89%	31.85 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M401) 136%	29.47 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M401) 118%	24.2 79%	23.83 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M401) 77%	49.6 267%	68.8 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M401) 410%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard	10.7	16.5 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M401) 54%	15.58 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M401) 46%	18.03 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M401) 69%	16.1 50%	14.81 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M401) 38%	27.6 158%	46.25 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M401) 332%

Dead Trigger 2
	Configurações	Valor
	high	29 fps

... comparado com

Asphalt 8: Airborne
	Configurações	Valor
	high	12 fps
	very low	22 fps

... comparado com

Carga Máxima

Inatividade


31.1 °C	29.9 °C	29.4 °C
31.9 °C	30.2 °C	30 °C
32.3 °C	30.3 °C	30 °C

Máximo: 32.3 °C
Médio: 30.6 °C


29.4 °C	30.9 °C	32.1 °C
29.4 °C	31.3 °C	33.1 °C
29.6 °C	31.2 °C	34.4 °C

Máximo: 34.4 °C
Médio: 31.3 °C

alimentação elétrica 32.6 °C | Temperatura do quarto 22 °C | Voltcraft IR-350

(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 30.6 °C / 87 F, compared to the average of 32.7 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 32.3 °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 34.4 °C / 94 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.8 °C / 86 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.

Lenovo Moto C audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 34.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.9% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 51% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 41% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 69% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 24% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

ZTE Blade A510 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 32.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | very high mids - on average 15.8% higher than median
(-) | mids are not linear (16.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.7% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (10.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (45.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 85% of all tested devices in this class were better, 0% similar, 15% 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, 0% similar, 5% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Archos 50 Platinum 4G audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 39% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 8.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (30.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 76% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 20% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 87% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 10% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

	Lenovo Moto C Plus 4000 mAh	ZTE Blade A510 2200 mAh	Archos 50 Platinum 4G 2200 mAh	Huawei Y5 II 2200 mAh	Lenovo C2 2750 mAh	Gretel A9 2300 mAh	Ulefone Metal 3050 mAh	HTC U11 3000 mAh
Power Consumption
Idle Minimum *	0.8	0.61	0.59	0.54	0.71	0.77	1.41	0.73
Idle Average *	1.87	1.75	1.68	1.58	1.62	1.99	2.46	1.96
Idle Maximum *	1.89	1.83	1.79	1.7	1.64	2.2	2.83	1.98
Load Average *	2.18	4.49	4.22	2.98	3.24	4.99	5.15	4.82
Load Maximum *	3.61	5.14	4.26	4.98	3.36	5.14	7.05	7.15

* ... smaller is better

Tempo de Execução da Bateria

Ocioso (sem WLAN, min brilho)		19h 19min
WiFi Websurfing		8h 37min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p		8h 49min
Carga (máximo brilho)		4h 38min

	Lenovo Moto C 2350 mAh	ZTE Blade A510 2200 mAh	Archos 50 Platinum 4G 2200 mAh	Huawei Y5 II 2200 mAh	Lenovo C2 2750 mAh	Gretel A9 2300 mAh	Ulefone Metal 3050 mAh	HTC U11 3000 mAh
Battery Runtime		-20%	-26%	-6%	16%	-24%	-22%	-4%
Reader / Idle	1159			1102 -5%				1250 8%
H.264	529							498 -6%
WiFi v1.3	517	416 -20%	384 -26%	503 -3%	662 28%	458 -11%	403 -22%	560 8%
Load	278			253 -9%	287 3%	174 -37%		212 -24%

Pro

+ Preço

+ Boa duração da bateria

+ Boa qualidade de imagem (considerando o preço)

+ Dual-SIM + leitor de cartões SD

+ Bateria trocável

Contra

- Painel TFT escuro

- Módulo GPS

- SoC fraco

- Lento armazenamento eMMC

Reviewed: Lenovo Moto C. Test unit provided by Lenovo Germany.

Na verdade, a Lenovo conseguiu produzir um bom aparelho eletrônico no segmento de baixo orçamento... se não fosse pela tela. Para nós, a câmera surpreendentemente boa (apesar do foco fixo), os bons recursos de áudio para esta classe de preço, a longa duração da bateria e a alta flexibilidade, graças à funcionalidade dual-SIM, o slot para cartão SD e a bateria trocável ainda não conseguem compensar a painel TFT ruim e sua resolução. O design combinado com a má relação tela-superfície e a escolha dos materiais são uma questão de gosto, mas o acabamento é bom.

Além do erro com a tela, o Moto C deixa pouco para reclamar. O desempenho da memória e do SoC são o que você esperaria desta classe de preço.

É um pouco peculiar que, em 2017, um fabricante como a Lenovo ainda vá para esse tipo de painel combinado com resolução tão baixa - mesmo no segmento de £ 100 ($129).

Mesmo que a qualidade não seja ruim para um painel TFT, não podemos recomendar o Moto C - pelo menos não se você o comprar no preço de varejo recomendado.

Lenovo Moto C - 2017-08-28 08/28/2017 v6^(old)
Marcus Herbrich

Acabamento

79%

Teclado

63 / 75 → 84%

Mouse

83%

Conectividade

34 / 60 → 56%

Peso

92%

Bateria

91%

Pantalha

77%

Desempenho do jogos

9 / 63 → 15%

Desempenho da aplicação

25 / 70 → 35%

Temperatura

93%

Ruído

100%

Audio

55 / 91 → 60%

Camera

56%

Médio

66%

77%

Smartphone - Médio equilibrado

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!

> Análises e revisões de portáteis e celulares > Análises > Análises > Breve Análise do Smartphone Lenovo Moto C

Marcus Herbrich, 2017-09- 7 (Update: 2017-09-12)

Breve Análise do Smartphone Lenovo Moto C

Size Comparison

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

Display Response Times

Lenovo Moto C audio analysis

ZTE Blade A510 audio analysis

Archos 50 Platinum 4G audio analysis

Pro

Contra

More articles related to this device

Pricecompare