Notebookcheck

Breve Análise do Smartphone Lenovo Moto C

Marcus Herbrich (traduzido por Ricardo Soto), 09/07/2017

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.

Lenovo Moto C (Moto C Serie)
Processador
Placa gráfica
ARM Mali-T720
Memória
1024 MB 
Pantalha
5 polegadas 16:9, 854x480 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), 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

 

Size Comparison

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
HTC U11
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
394 MBit/s ∼100% +802%
Lenovo C2
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6735, 8 GB eMMC Flash
50.5 MBit/s ∼13% +16%
ZTE Blade A510
Mali-T720, MT6735P, 8 GB eMMC Flash
48.7 MBit/s ∼12% +11%
Lenovo Moto C
Mali-T720, MT6737, 16 GB eMMC Flash
43.7 MBit/s ∼11%
Gretel A9
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6737, 16 GB eMMC Flash
42.3 MBit/s ∼11% -3%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
HTC U11
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
639 MBit/s ∼100% +1254%
Lenovo C2
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6735, 8 GB eMMC Flash
53.3 MBit/s ∼8% +13%
Gretel A9
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6737, 16 GB eMMC Flash
51.4 MBit/s ∼8% +9%
ZTE Blade A510
Mali-T720, MT6735P, 8 GB eMMC Flash
47.9 MBit/s ∼7% +1%
Lenovo Moto C
Mali-T720, MT6737, 16 GB eMMC Flash
47.2 MBit/s ∼7%
GPS test Garmin Edge 500
GPS test Garmin Edge 500
GPS test Garmin Edge 500
GPS test Lenovo Moto C
GPS test Lenovo Moto C
GPS test Lenovo Moto C

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
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
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Máximo: 371 cd/m² 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 | - Ø
ΔE Greyscale 12.7 | - Ø
89.5% sRGB (Calman)
Gamma: 2.04
Lenovo Moto C
TFT, 854x480, 5
ZTE Blade A510
IPS, 1280x720, 5
Archos 50 Platinum 4G
IPS, 1280x720, 5
Huawei Y5 II
IPS, 1280x720, 5
Lenovo C2
IPS, 1280x720, 5
Gretel A9
IPS, 1280x720, 5
Ulefone Metal
IPS, 1280x720, 5
HTC U11
Super LCD5, 2560x1440, 5.5
Screen
5%
-12%
-24%
17%
3%
-12%
34%
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 DeltaE2000 *
10.4
5.2
50%
5.8
44%
7.8
25%
6.5
37%
8
23%
6.8
35%
3.2
69%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
12.7
5.7
55%
5.7
55%
8.4
34%
7.7
39%
8.5
33%
7.1
44%
2.2
83%
Gamma
2.04 118%
1.99 121%
2.1 114%
2.07 116%
2.15 112%
2.8 86%
2.77 87%
2.22 108%
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)

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: 54 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8568 (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
86 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 66 ms rise
↘ 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 0.8 (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 (26.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
94 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 52 ms rise
↘ 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 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 99 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (42.5 ms).
AnTuTu Benchmark v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C
25338 Points ∼11%
ZTE Blade A510
24338 Points ∼11% -4%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G
23657 Points ∼10% -7%
Huawei Y5 II
23795 Points ∼10% -6%
Lenovo C2
23825 Points ∼10% -6%
Gretel A9
29237 Points ∼13% +15%
Ulefone Metal
37103 Points ∼16% +46%
HTC U11
175032 Points ∼77% +591%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C
2313 Points ∼22%
ZTE Blade A510
2109 Points ∼20% -9%
Gretel A9
2436 Points ∼24% +5%
HTC U11
6828 Points ∼66% +195%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C
2877 Points ∼34%
ZTE Blade A510
2675 Points ∼31% -7%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G
2807 Points ∼33% -2%
Huawei Y5 II
3237 Points ∼38% +13%
Lenovo C2
1908 Points ∼22% -34%
Gretel A9
3293 Points ∼39% +14%
Ulefone Metal
4079 Points ∼48% +42%
HTC U11
8295 Points ∼97% +188%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C
534 Points ∼31%
ZTE Blade A510
10 Points ∼1% -98%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G
9 Points ∼1% -98%
Huawei Y5 II
10 Points ∼1% -98%
Lenovo C2
9 Points ∼1% -98%
Gretel A9
10 Points ∼1% -98%
Ulefone Metal
10 Points ∼1% -98%
HTC U11
1221 Points ∼72% +129%
Graphics (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C
177 Points ∼2%
ZTE Blade A510
174 Points ∼2% -2%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G
175 Points ∼2% -1%
Huawei Y5 II
283 Points ∼3% +60%
Lenovo C2
177 Points ∼2% 0%
Gretel A9
209 Points ∼2% +18%
Ulefone Metal
433 Points ∼5% +145%
HTC U11
5976 Points ∼65% +3276%
Memory (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C
419 Points ∼9%
ZTE Blade A510
285 Points ∼6% -32%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G
354 Points ∼8% -16%
Huawei Y5 II
375 Points ∼8% -11%
Lenovo C2
332 Points ∼8% -21%
Gretel A9
468 Points ∼11% +12%
Ulefone Metal
802 Points ∼18% +91%
HTC U11
2085 Points ∼47% +398%
System (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C
883 Points ∼9%
ZTE Blade A510
829 Points ∼8% -6%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G
838 Points ∼8% -5%
Huawei Y5 II
1094 Points ∼11% +24%
Lenovo C2
826 Points ∼8% -6%
Gretel A9
1030 Points ∼10% +17%
Ulefone Metal
1691 Points ∼16% +92%
HTC U11
5570 Points ∼54% +531%
Overall (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C
432 Points ∼11%
ZTE Blade A510
141 Points ∼4% -67%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G
148 Points ∼4% -66%
Huawei Y5 II
183 Points ∼5% -58%
Lenovo C2
147 Points ∼4% -66%
Gretel A9
176 Points ∼5% -59%
Ulefone Metal
273 Points ∼7% -37%
HTC U11
3034 Points ∼80% +602%
Geekbench 4.1/4.2
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C
1254 Points ∼5%
Gretel A9
1468 Points ∼6% +17%
HTC U11
6443 Points ∼26% +414%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C
450 Points ∼8%
Gretel A9
537 Points ∼9% +19%
HTC U11
1906 Points ∼32% +324%
3DMark
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C
7209 Points ∼10%
ZTE Blade A510
7025 Points ∼10% -3%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G
6902 Points ∼10% -4%
Huawei Y5 II
Points ∼0% -100%
Gretel A9
8339 Points ∼12% +16%
Ulefone Metal
10371 Points ∼14% +44%
HTC U11
20140 Points ∼28% +179%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C
2706 Points ∼1%
ZTE Blade A510
2682 Points ∼1% -1%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G
2681 Points ∼1% -1%
Huawei Y5 II
Points ∼0% -100%
Gretel A9
3235 Points ∼1% +20%
Ulefone Metal
6469 Points ∼1% +139%
HTC U11
55725 Points ∼12% +1959%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C
3142 Points ∼2%
ZTE Blade A510
3109 Points ∼2% -1%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G
3103 Points ∼2% -1%
Huawei Y5 II
Points ∼0% -100%
Lenovo C2
Points ∼0% -100%
Gretel A9
3744 Points ∼2% +19%
Ulefone Metal
7059 Points ∼4% +125%
HTC U11
40014 Points ∼20% +1174%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C
5.1 fps ∼0%
ZTE Blade A510
4.9 fps ∼0% -4%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G
8.7 fps ∼1% +71%
Huawei Y5 II
8.4 fps ∼1% +65%
Lenovo C2
5 fps ∼0% -2%
Gretel A9
6 fps ∼0% +18%
Ulefone Metal
19 fps ∼1% +273%
HTC U11
91 fps ∼7% +1684%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C
13 fps ∼3%
ZTE Blade A510
8.5 fps ∼2% -35%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G
4.9 fps ∼1% -62%
Huawei Y5 II
15 fps ∼3% +15%
Lenovo C2
8.5 fps ∼2% -35%
Gretel A9
10 fps ∼2% -23%
Ulefone Metal
12 fps ∼3% -8%
HTC U11
58 fps ∼13% +346%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C
1.6 fps ∼0%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G
3.6 fps ∼1% +125%
Huawei Y5 II
fps ∼0% -100%
Lenovo C2
fps ∼0% -100%
Gretel A9
2.2 fps ∼0% +38%
Ulefone Metal
2.9 fps ∼1% +81%
HTC U11
51 fps ∼9% +3088%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C
7.8 fps ∼2%
ZTE Blade A510
3.5 fps ∼1% -55%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G
1.2 fps ∼0% -85%
Huawei Y5 II
6.1 fps ∼2% -22%
Lenovo C2
3.7 fps ∼1% -53%
Gretel A9
4.5 fps ∼1% -42%
Ulefone Metal
6.4 fps ∼2% -18%
HTC U11
29 fps ∼8% +272%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C
5.5 fps ∼1%
ZTE Blade A510
1.1 fps ∼0% -80%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G
2.7 fps ∼1% -51%
Huawei Y5 II
fps ∼0% -100%
Lenovo C2
1.2 fps ∼0% -78%
Gretel A9
1.4 fps ∼0% -75%
Ulefone Metal
8.9 fps ∼2% +62%
HTC U11
33 fps ∼8% +500%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C
1.2 fps ∼1%
ZTE Blade A510
2.5 fps ∼1% +108%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G
1.2 fps ∼1% 0%
Huawei Y5 II
fps ∼0% -100%
Lenovo C2
2.7 fps ∼2% +125%
Gretel A9
3.2 fps ∼2% +167%
Ulefone Metal
4.5 fps ∼3% +275%
HTC U11
15 fps ∼9% +1150%
Epic Citadel - Ultra High Quality (sort by value)
Lenovo Moto C
36.6 fps ∼59%
HTC U11
60 fps ∼97% +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 - 1.1 Total Score
HTC U11 (Chrome 58)
69.51 Points ∼100% +495%
Huawei Y5 II (Chrome 50)
18.47 Points ∼27% +58%
Ulefone Metal (Chrome Version 52)
17.831 Points ∼26% +53%
Gretel A9 (Chrome 58)
16.2 Points ∼23% +39%
Lenovo C2 (Chrome 55)
13.502 Points ∼19% +16%
ZTE Blade A510 (Chrome Version 56)
12.784 Points ∼18% +9%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G (Chrome Browser Version 52)
12.755 Points ∼18% +9%
Lenovo Moto C (Chrome Version 60)
11.676 Points ∼17%
Octane V2 - Total Score
HTC U11 (Chrome 58)
11781 Points ∼100% +581%
Ulefone Metal (Chrome Version 52)
2738 Points ∼23% +58%
Huawei Y5 II (Chrome 50)
2707 Points ∼23% +56%
Gretel A9 (Chrome 58)
2392 Points ∼20% +38%
Lenovo C2 (Chrome 55)
2159 Points ∼18% +25%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G (Chrome Browser Version 52)
2122 Points ∼18% +23%
ZTE Blade A510 (Chrome Version 56)
2102 Points ∼18% +22%
Lenovo Moto C (Chrome Version 60)
1730 Points ∼15%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Lenovo Moto C (Chrome Version 60)
19879.3 ms * ∼100%
Archos 50 Platinum 4G (Chrome Browser Version 52)
19092.2 ms * ∼96% +4%
ZTE Blade A510 (Chrome Version 56)
17364.1 ms * ∼87% +13%
Lenovo C2 (Chrome 55)
16585 ms * ∼83% +17%
Gretel A9 (Chrome 58)
15146 ms * ∼76% +24%
Ulefone Metal (Chrome Version 52)
13397.3 ms * ∼67% +33%
Huawei Y5 II (Chrome 50)
12505 ms * ∼63% +37%
HTC U11 (Chrome 58)
2760.3 ms * ∼14% +86%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
HTC U11 (Chrome 58)
162 Points ∼100% +315%
Lenovo Moto C (Chrome Version 60)
39 Points ∼24%

* ... smaller is better

Lenovo Moto CZTE Blade A510Archos 50 Platinum 4GHuawei Y5 IILenovo C2Gretel A9Ulefone MetalHTC U11
AndroBench 3-5
-9%
-2%
23%
-11%
18%
73%
406%
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%
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%
68.82 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
410%
Random Write 4KB
10.9
4.69
-57%
4.35
-60%
6
-45%
4.7
-57%
10.1
-7%
7.87
-28%
79.97
634%
Random Read 4KB
18.37
14.03
-24%
14.31
-22%
27.3
49%
14.5
-21%
18.1
-1%
22.18
21%
91.45
398%
Sequential Write 256KB
44.55
9.94
-78%
7.56
-83%
21.6
-52%
8
-82%
44.5
0%
39.91
-10%
206.41
363%
Sequential Read 256KB
179.28
111.91
-38%
125.37
-30%
173.3
-3%
120.7
-33%
176.2
-2%
228.84
28%
717.33
300%
Dead Trigger 2
 ConfiguraçõesValor
 high29 fps
Asphalt 8: Airborne
 ConfiguraçõesValor
 high12 fps
 very low22 fps
Carga Máxima
 31.1 °C29.9 °C29.4 °C 
 31.9 °C30.2 °C30 °C 
 32.3 °C30.3 °C30 °C 
Máximo: 32.3 °C
Médio: 30.6 °C
29.4 °C30.9 °C32.1 °C
29.4 °C31.3 °C33.1 °C
29.6 °C31.2 °C34.4 °C
Máximo: 34.4 °C
Médio: 31.3 °C
alimentação elétrica  32.6 °C | Temperatura do quarto 22 °C | Voltcraft IR-350
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2032.630.832.62528.730.428.73128.329.828.34031.932.731.9502830.9286327.728.727.78026.232.126.210026.334.126.312532.628.832.616025.923.725.92003321.13325040.12040.131547.819.647.840054.32254.350061.223.661.26306718.46780072.217.872.2100073.718.773.7125072.717.672.7160073.216.373.2200071.616.571.6250070.416.470.4315068.916.268.940007016.170500070.51670.5630072.216.272.2800075.616.175.61000075.11675.1125006815.8681600055.415.955.4SPL83.729.983.7N57.31.457.3median 68.9Lenovo Moto Cmedian 17.6median 68.9Delta12.22.912.231.636.725.435.425.33932.935.233.633.731.635.428.434.9272720.823.8222421.322.820.824.621.222.219.425.419.533.417.746.617.960.617.868.217.369.317.47216.773.717.268.418.268.317.969.417.667.517.756.217.852.917.95818.156.718.2403080.31.338.2median 17.9ZTE Blade A510median 56.21.319.432.441.331.337.831.735.42634.939.440.336.232.928.632.525.424.321.323.723.322.422.525.822.426.221.336.518.444.417.55617.560.817.269.516.870.117.372.817.472.316.672.217.368.717.665.417.667.117.76717.467.817.769.217.968.618.162.718.151.329.881.21.346.6median 17.7Archos 50 Platinum 4Gmedian 65.41.614.2hearing rangehide median Pink Noise
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 (24.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 40% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 49% worse
» The best had a delta of 14%, average was 26%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 64% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 28% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

ZTE Blade A510 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.26 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 (44.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 99% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 0% worse
» The best had a delta of 14%, average was 26%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 99% of all tested devices were better, 0% similar, 0% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Archos 50 Platinum 4G audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.17 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 (30.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 75% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 17% worse
» The best had a delta of 14%, average was 26%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 86% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 10% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Lenovo Moto C
2350 mAh
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
Navegar com WLAN v1.3
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 - 08/28/2017 v6
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)