Breve Análise do Smartphone Motorola Moto G 5G Plus - Uma bateria gigante com tela de 90 Hz
Secondary Camera: 16 MPix (ƒ/2,0, 1,0 µm, Ultra-Wide-Angle) + 8 MP (ƒ/2,2, 1,12 µm)
Vergleichsgeräte
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
80 % | 08/2020 | Motorola Moto G 5G Plus SD 765, Adreno 620 | 207 g | 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.70" | 2520x1080 | |
84 % | 08/2020 | Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G SD 765G, Adreno 620 | 192 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.57" | 2340x1080 | |
83 % | 08/2020 | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite SD 730G, Adreno 618 | 204 g | 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.47" | 2340x1080 | |
83 % | 08/2020 | OnePlus Nord SD 765G, Adreno 620 | 184 g | 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.44" | 2440x1080 | |
82 % | 02/2020 | Samsung Galaxy A71 SD 730, Adreno 618 | 179 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.70" | 2400x1080 | |
77 % | 08/2020 | Oppo A72 SD 665, Adreno 610 | 192 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 |
Os Top 10
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Multimídia
» Os Top 10 Portáteis de Jogos
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Leves para Jogos
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Acessíveis de Escritório/Empresariais
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Premium de Escritório/Empresariais
» Os Top 10 dos Portáteis Workstation
» Os Top 10 Subportáteis
» Os Top 10 Ultrabooks
» Os Top 10 Conversíveis
» Os Top 10 Tablets
» Os Top 10 Smartphones
» A melhores Telas de Portáteis Analisadas Pela Notebookcheck
» Top 10 dos portáteis abaixo dos 500 Euros da Notebookcheck
» Top 10 dos Portáteis abaixo dos 300 Euros
Size comparison
Networking | |
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10 | |
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | |
OnePlus Nord | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G | |
Oppo A72 | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite | |
Samsung Galaxy A71 | |
Average of class Smartphone (5.9 - 1414, n=641) | |
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10 | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G | |
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | |
OnePlus Nord | |
Oppo A72 | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite | |
Samsung Galaxy A71 | |
Average of class Smartphone (9.4 - 1599, n=641) |
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.
HauptkameraHauptkameraLow LightUltraweitwinkel

|
iluminação: 93 %
iluminação com acumulador: 461 cd/m²
Contraste: 887:1 (Preto: 0.52 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.01 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.7
ΔE Greyscale 1.5 | 0.64-98 Ø5.9
99.6% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.25
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus LTPS, 2520x1080, 6.70 | Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.57 | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.47 | OnePlus Nord AMOLED, 2440x1080, 6.44 | Samsung Galaxy A71 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.70 | Oppo A72 IPS LCD, 2400x1080, 6.50 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | -2% | 18% | -41% | -62% | -156% | |
Brightness middle | 461 | 584 27% | 605 31% | 529 15% | 629 36% | 505 10% |
Brightness | 458 | 583 27% | 608 33% | 531 16% | 646 41% | 482 5% |
Brightness Distribution | 93 | 97 4% | 95 2% | 94 1% | 95 2% | 93 0% |
Black Level * | 0.52 | 0.55 -6% | ||||
Contrast | 887 | 918 3% | ||||
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 * | 1.01 | 1.17 -16% | 0.84 17% | 2.53 -150% | 2.7 -167% | 6.3 -524% |
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. * | 2.1 | 2.95 -40% | 1.8 14% | 4.52 -115% | 6 -186% | 10.1 -381% |
Greyscale DeltaE2000 * | 1.5 | 1.7 -13% | 1.3 13% | 1.7 -13% | 3 -100% | 6.8 -353% |
Gamma | 2.25 98% | 2.231 99% | 2.211 100% | 2.249 98% | 2.1 105% | 2.29 96% |
CCT | 6701 97% | 6341 103% | 6310 103% | 6462 101% | 6340 103% | 8161 80% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM not detected | |||
In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9725 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured. |
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
26 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 15 ms rise | |
↘ 11 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. » 48 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (24.4 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
34 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 17 ms rise | |
↘ 17 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 636 (maximum) ms. » 27 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (38.7 ms). |
Geekbench 4.1 - 4.4 | |
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value) | |
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765 | |
Average of class Smartphone (663 - 21070, n=365) | |
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value) | |
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765 | |
Average of class Smartphone (883 - 14476, n=432) | |
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value) | |
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765 | |
Average of class Smartphone (390 - 4970, n=432) |
PCMark for Android | |
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite | |
OnePlus Nord | |
Samsung Galaxy A71 | |
Oppo A72 | |
Oppo A72 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765 (8336 - 8756, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (82 - 15299, n=568) | |
Work performance score (sort by value) | |
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite | |
OnePlus Nord | |
Samsung Galaxy A71 | |
Oppo A72 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765 (9914 - 10045, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (1077 - 19989, n=717) |
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | |
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value) | |
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite | |
OnePlus Nord | |
Samsung Galaxy A71 | |
Oppo A72 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765 (86 - 87, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (0.5 - 322, n=835) | |
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value) | |
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite | |
OnePlus Nord | |
Samsung Galaxy A71 | |
Oppo A72 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765 (75 - 78, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (1 - 142, n=844) |
GFXBench 3.0 | |
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite | |
OnePlus Nord | |
Samsung Galaxy A71 | |
Oppo A72 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765 (50 - 50, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (0.8 - 180, n=740) | |
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite | |
OnePlus Nord | |
Samsung Galaxy A71 | |
Oppo A72 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765 (44 - 48, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (1.2 - 117, n=748) |
GFXBench 3.1 | |
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite | |
OnePlus Nord | |
Samsung Galaxy A71 | |
Oppo A72 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765 (33 - 33, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (0.87 - 117, n=603) | |
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite | |
OnePlus Nord | |
Samsung Galaxy A71 | |
Oppo A72 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765 (29 - 32, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (1.2 - 110, n=605) |
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite | |
OnePlus Nord | |
Samsung Galaxy A71 | |
Oppo A72 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765 (279244 - 304120, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (53335 - 624727, n=153) |
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
OnePlus Nord (Chrome 84) | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G (Chrome83) | |
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus (Chrome 83) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765 (48.3 - 48.6, n=2) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite (Chrome 83.0.4103.106) | |
Average of class Smartphone (9.13 - 161, n=227) | |
Samsung Galaxy A71 (Chrome 79.0.3945.136) | |
Oppo A72 (Chrome 83) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
OnePlus Nord (Chrome 84) | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G | |
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus (Chrome 83) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765 (87.8 - 88.5, n=2) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite (Chrome 83.0.4103.106) | |
Samsung Galaxy A71 (Chrome 79.0.3945.136) | |
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 375, n=660) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
OnePlus Nord (Chome 84) | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G (Chrome83) | |
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus (Chrome 83) | |
Average of class Smartphone (6.42 - 196, n=206) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite (Chrome 83.0.4103.106) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765 (26.8 - 45.2, n=2) | |
Samsung Galaxy A71 (Chrome 79.0.3945.136) | |
Oppo A72 (Chrome 83) |
WebXPRT 3 - --- | |
OnePlus Nord (Chrome 84) | |
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus (Chrome 83) | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G (Chrome83) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765 (72 - 78, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 194, n=298) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite (Chrome 83.0.4103.106) | |
Samsung Galaxy A71 (Chrome 79.0.3945.136) | |
Oppo A72 (Chrome 83) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
OnePlus Nord (Chrome 84) | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G (Chrome83) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765 (16302 - 17700, n=2) | |
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus (Chrome 83) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite (Chrome 83.0.4103.106) | |
Samsung Galaxy A71 (Chrome 79.0.3945.136) | |
Oppo A72 (Chrome 83) | |
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 58632, n=830) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (460 - 59466, n=856) | |
Oppo A72 (Chrome 83) | |
Samsung Galaxy A71 (Chrome 79.0.3945.136) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite (Chrome 83.0.4103.106) | |
OnePlus Nord (Chrome 84) | |
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus (Chrome 83) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765 (2754 - 2764, n=2) | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G (Chrome83) |
* ... smaller is better
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite | OnePlus Nord | Samsung Galaxy A71 | Oppo A72 | Average 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | 51% | -6% | 38% | -16% | -16% | -17% | -41% | |
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 65.7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | 57.18 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) -13% | 31.2 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) -53% | 51.8 (17.1 - 71.9, n=32) -21% | 51.6 (1.7 - 87.1, n=564) -21% | |||
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 87.1 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | 73.39 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) -16% | 37.76 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) -57% | 68.1 (18 - 87.1, n=32) -22% | 69.5 (8.1 - 96.5, n=564) -20% | |||
Random Write 4KB | 119.3 | 138.47 16% | 125.75 5% | 104.5 -12% | 109.57 -8% | 152.9 28% | 68.8 (8.77 - 165, n=43) -42% | 40.2 (0.14 - 319, n=935) -66% |
Random Read 4KB | 138.14 | 156.45 13% | 134.57 -3% | 126.7 -8% | 112.25 -19% | 135.91 -2% | 133 (78.2 - 173, n=43) -4% | 63.1 (1.59 - 325, n=935) -54% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 180.21 | 476.87 165% | 213.22 18% | 473.1 163% | 192.38 7% | 234.61 30% | 199 (133 - 388, n=43) 10% | 139 (2.99 - 1321, n=935) -23% |
Sequential Read 256KB | 885.34 | 979.54 11% | 501.29 -43% | 955.5 8% | 493.04 -44% | 504.32 -43% | 703 (476 - 895, n=43) -21% | 363 (12.1 - 2037, n=935) -59% |
PUBG mobile
Asphalt 9 Legends
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 44.1 °C / 111 F, compared to the average of 35.2 °C / 95 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 42.9 °C / 109 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.1 °C / 84 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.3% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.1% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 12% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 80% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 39% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 54% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 9% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 87% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 33% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 60% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%
desligado | ![]() ![]() |
Ocioso | ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Carga |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Key:
min: ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus 5000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G 4160 mAh | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite 5260 mAh | OnePlus Nord 4115 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A71 4500 mAh | Oppo A72 5000 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765 | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | 10% | 42% | 19% | 38% | 33% | 15% | 32% | |
Idle Minimum * | 1.5 | 1.5 -0% | 0.8 47% | 1.8 -20% | 0.63 58% | 0.7 53% | 1.25 (1 - 1.5, n=2) 17% | 0.89 (0.2 - 3.4, n=927) 41% |
Idle Average * | 2.1 | 2.2 -5% | 1.1 48% | 2.1 -0% | 1.49 29% | 1.97 6% | 1.75 (1.4 - 2.1, n=2) 17% | 1.758 (0.6 - 6.2, n=926) 16% |
Idle Maximum * | 2.9 | 2.9 -0% | 1.8 38% | 2.3 21% | 1.51 48% | 1.98 32% | 2.45 (2 - 2.9, n=2) 16% | 2.04 (0.74 - 6.6, n=927) 30% |
Load Average * | 6.7 | 4.4 34% | 3.7 45% | 3.4 49% | 4.62 31% | 3.83 43% | 5.75 (4.8 - 6.7, n=2) 14% | 4.12 (0.8 - 10.8, n=921) 39% |
Load Maximum * | 9.2 | 7.2 22% | 6.1 34% | 5.2 43% | 7.11 23% | 6.2 33% | 8.25 (7.3 - 9.2, n=2) 10% | 6.13 (1.2 - 14.2, n=921) 33% |
* ... smaller is better
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus 5000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G 4160 mAh | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite 5260 mAh | OnePlus Nord 4115 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A71 4500 mAh | Oppo A72 5000 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | 56% | 59% | 28% | 31% | 11% | |
Reader / Idle | 1549 | 1683 9% | 2249 45% | 2003 29% | 2164 40% | |
H.264 | 581 | 1403 141% | 1370 136% | 1064 83% | 1164 100% | |
WiFi v1.3 | 914 | 884 -3% | 1095 20% | 869 -5% | 815 -11% | 1018 11% |
Load | 252 | 448 78% | 337 34% | 261 4% | 242 -4% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto - Nada mal, nada bom
O Motorola Moto G 5G Plus oferece um hardware muito bom emparelhado com uma bateria de longa duração e um poderoso SoC Snapdragon 765G. No entanto, há muito a criticar sobre o mais recente protegido da série Moto G, apesar de seu baixo preço de cerca de 350 Euros (~$ 413).
O design é certamente uma questão de gosto, mas ainda achamos o furo duplo um pouco desafortunado, especialmente porque a qualidade da câmera selfie com grande angular torna a segunda lente obsoleta. Os demais módulos de câmera também estão um pouco abaixo da média, mesmo para essa faixa de preço. A sensação táctil está um pouco limitada aos elementos plásticos do telefone e à carcaça muito forte, o que é necessário por causa da bateria muito grande de 5.000 mAh. O tempo de duração não justifica a grande capacidade da bateria - ainda vemos (muito) espaço para otimização em termos de gerenciamento de energia.
O Moto G 5G Plus prova ser um smartphone de gama média sólido em nosso teste. No entanto, alguns pontos fracos estragam a impressão geral do telefone celular da Motorola.
A velocidade do sistema inconsistente é um pouco surpreendente. Na vida cotidiana, o desempenho é satisfatório e, graças à tela de 90 Hz, a operação é boa e fluente, mas em combinação com apenas 4 GB de RAM, o Snapdragon 765G em nosso dispositivo de teste tem quedas de desempenho incomumente frequentes - o desempenho de jogos do SoC Qualcomm no Moto G 5G Plus, especialmente porque está usando o Adreno como GPU, é incrivelmente ruim.
Motorola Moto G 5G Plus - 12/10/2020 v7
Marcus Herbrich