Notebookcheck

Breve Análise do Smartphone Nokia 8 Sirocco

Florian Wimmer (traduzido por Ricardo Soto), 06/03/2018

Um smartphone para os fanáticos do design? O Nokia 8 Sirocco tem um nome incomum e visual incomum. Será que o telefone da gama alta consegue agradar a multidão ou é principalmente interessante para os fanáticos do design? Vamos descobrir em nossa análise.

Nokia 8 Sirocco (8 Serie)
Placa gráfica
Memória
6144 MB 
, LPPDDR 4X
Pantalha
5.5 polegadas 16:9, 2560 x 1440 pixel 534 PPI, Tela táctil capacitiva, P-OLED, Corning Gorilla Glas 5, Brilhante: sim
Disco rígido
128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 128 GB 
, 114 GB livre
Conexões
1 USB 3.0, Conexões Audio: Saída de áudio via porta USB-C, 1 Leitor de Impressões Digitais, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensores: acelerômetro, giroscópio, sensor de proximidade, barômetro, bússola, ANT+, USB-OTG
Funcionamento em rede
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 5.0, 2G 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900; 3G 850 / 900 / 1900 / 2100; LTE 1(2100), 2(1900), 3(1800), 4(1700/2100), 5(850), 7(2600), 8(900), 20(800), 28(700), 34(2000), 38(2600), 39(1900), 40(2300), 41(2500), LTE, GPS
Tamanho
altura x largura x profundidade (em mm): 7.5 x 140.9 x 72.97
Bateria
12.4 Wh, 3260 mAh Lítio-Ion, Carregamento sem fio (Qi), QuickCharge 4.0, Tempo de conversação 3G (de acordo com o fabricante): 22 h, Standby 3G (de acordo com o fabricante): 495 h
Sistema Operativo
Android 8.1 Oreo
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix f/​1.7, phase detection AF, Dual LED flash, Videos @2160p/​30fps (main camera); 13.0MP, f/​2.6, depth of field, telephoto lens (second camera)
Secondary Camera: 5 MPix f/2.0, 1.4 µm
Características adicionais
Alto falantes: Um alto-falante na borda inferior, Teclado: Teclado virtual, Fonte de alimentação QuickCharge, cabo USB, fones, adaptador de áudio, ferramenta SIM, capa, Suporte, 24 Meses Garantia, bandwidth (download/upload): 600Mbps/​150Mbps (LTE); SAR value: 0.54 W/kg (head); 1.54 W/kg (body) IP67 certified, fanless
peso
176 g, Suprimento de energia: 83 g
Preço
749 Euro

 

Nokia 8 Sirocco
Nokia 8 Sirocco
Nokia 8 Sirocco
Nokia 8 Sirocco
Nokia 8 Sirocco
Nokia 8 Sirocco
Nokia 8 Sirocco
Nokia 8 Sirocco
Nokia 8 Sirocco

Size Comparison

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Sony Xperia XZ2
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
669 MBit/s ∼100% +141%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
652 MBit/s ∼97% +135%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
573 MBit/s ∼86% +106%
Nokia 8 Sirocco
Adreno 540, 835, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
278 MBit/s ∼42%
Nokia 8
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
235 MBit/s ∼35% -15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=259)
186 MBit/s ∼28% -33%
Huawei P10 Plus
Mali-G71 MP8, Kirin 960, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
40.8 MBit/s ∼6% -85%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Sony Xperia XZ2
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
633 MBit/s ∼100% +15%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
587 MBit/s ∼93% +7%
Nokia 8 Sirocco
Adreno 540, 835, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
550 MBit/s ∼87%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
519 MBit/s ∼82% -6%
Nokia 8
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
235 MBit/s ∼37% -57%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=259)
182 MBit/s ∼29% -67%
Huawei P10 Plus
Mali-G71 MP8, Kirin 960, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
128 MBit/s ∼20% -77%
GPS Garmin Edge 500 – overview
GPS Garmin Edge 500 – overview
GPS Garmin Edge 500 – lake
GPS Garmin Edge 500 – lake
GPS Garmin Edge 500 – loop
GPS Garmin Edge 500 – loop
GPS Nokia 8 Sirocco – overview
GPS Nokia 8 Sirocco – overview
GPS Nokia 8 Sirocco – lake
GPS Nokia 8 Sirocco – lake
GPS Nokia 8 Sirocco – loop
GPS Nokia 8 Sirocco – loop

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
555
cd/m²
575
cd/m²
650
cd/m²
563
cd/m²
576
cd/m²
645
cd/m²
560
cd/m²
599
cd/m²
648
cd/m²
Distribuição do brilho
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Máximo: 650 cd/m² Médio: 596.8 cd/m² Minimum: 3.28 cd/m²
iluminação: 85 %
iluminação com acumulador: 576 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.3
ΔE Greyscale 5.4 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
Gamma: 2.3
Nokia 8 Sirocco
P-OLED, 2560x1440, 5.5
Sony Xperia XZ2
IPS, 2160x1080, 5.7
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
OLED, 2560x1440, 5.5
Samsung Galaxy S9
Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 5.8
Huawei P10 Plus
LTPS, 2560x1440, 5.5
Nokia 8
IPS, 2560x1440, 5.3
Screen
34%
1%
31%
27%
-16%
Brightness middle
576
630
9%
511
-11%
529
-8%
568
-1%
735
28%
Brightness
597
632
6%
526
-12%
527
-12%
562
-6%
707
18%
Brightness Distribution
85
96
13%
88
4%
96
13%
92
8%
92
8%
Black Level *
0.44
0.43
0.79
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
5
1.5
70%
4.3
14%
1.4
72%
2.4
52%
6.7
-34%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
8
4.3
46%
9.6
-20%
4
50%
3.8
52%
12.9
-61%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
5.4
2.1
61%
3.7
31%
1.6
70%
2.5
54%
8.3
-54%
Gamma
2.3 104%
2.17 111%
2.11 114%
2.16 111%
2.37 101%
2.24 107%
CCT
7730 84%
6513 100%
7075 92%
6358 102%
6779 96%
8906 73%
Contrast
1432
1321
930

* ... 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 detected 250 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 250 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

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 8813 (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
4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 2 ms rise
↘ 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 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 1 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (25.8 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
4.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 2.8 ms rise
↘ 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 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 1 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (41.3 ms).
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
185487 Points ∼82%
Sony Xperia XZ2
225663 Points ∼100% +22%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
179595 Points ∼80% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S9
217950 Points ∼97% +18%
Huawei P10 Plus
138326 Points ∼61% -25%
Nokia 8
177018 Points ∼78% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (150208 - 185487, n=16)
173054 Points ∼77% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (23275 - 230642, n=350)
70775 Points ∼31% -62%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
209729 Points ∼79%
Sony Xperia XZ2
266981 Points ∼100% +27%
Samsung Galaxy S9
243861 Points ∼91% +16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (204457 - 217442, n=7)
209657 Points ∼79% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (17073 - 290397, n=127)
100740 Points ∼38% -52%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
7193 Points ∼89%
Sony Xperia XZ2
8069 Points ∼100% +12%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
6998 Points ∼87% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S9
5291 Points ∼66% -26%
Huawei P10 Plus
6157 Points ∼76% -14%
Nokia 8
6959 Points ∼86% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (5603 - 7223, n=18)
6724 Points ∼83% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (2814 - 8601, n=214)
4398 Points ∼55% -39%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
7925 Points ∼85%
Sony Xperia XZ2
9319 Points ∼100% +18%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
8553 Points ∼92% +8%
Samsung Galaxy S9
5736 Points ∼62% -28%
Huawei P10 Plus
7377 Points ∼79% -7%
Nokia 8
8282 Points ∼89% +5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (6854 - 8553, n=18)
7868 Points ∼84% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (5960 - 10264, n=378)
4665 Points ∼50% -41%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
1202 Points ∼89%
Sony Xperia XZ2
1346 Points ∼100% +12%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
1300 Points ∼97% +8%
Samsung Galaxy S9
1099 Points ∼82% -9%
Huawei P10 Plus
1054 Points ∼78% -12%
Nokia 8
1262 Points ∼94% +5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (1009 - 1329, n=16)
1222 Points ∼91% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1682, n=453)
666 Points ∼49% -45%
Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
6084 Points ∼77%
Sony Xperia XZ2
7868 Points ∼100% +29%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
6144 Points ∼78% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9
6373 Points ∼81% +5%
Huawei P10 Plus
3438 Points ∼44% -43%
Nokia 8
5958 Points ∼76% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (5791 - 6273, n=16)
6051 Points ∼77% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 9248, n=453)
1510 Points ∼19% -75%
Memory (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
3162 Points ∼87%
Sony Xperia XZ2
2193 Points ∼60% -31%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
3652 Points ∼100% +15%
Samsung Galaxy S9
2669 Points ∼73% -16%
Huawei P10 Plus
3331 Points ∼91% +5%
Nokia 8
3540 Points ∼97% +12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (1501 - 4423, n=16)
3151 Points ∼86% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 4798, n=453)
1124 Points ∼31% -64%
System (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
5888 Points ∼70%
Sony Xperia XZ2
8402 Points ∼100% +43%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
5918 Points ∼70% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9
6234 Points ∼74% +6%
Huawei P10 Plus
3572 Points ∼43% -39%
Nokia 8
5671 Points ∼67% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (4238 - 5926, n=16)
5699 Points ∼68% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 10281, n=453)
2257 Points ∼27% -62%
Overall (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
3416 Points ∼91%
Sony Xperia XZ2
3738 Points ∼100% +9%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
3625 Points ∼97% +6%
Samsung Galaxy S9
3285 Points ∼88% -4%
Huawei P10 Plus
2563 Points ∼69% -25%
Nokia 8
3505 Points ∼94% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (2702 - 3790, n=16)
3371 Points ∼90% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (150 - 4308, n=457)
1131 Points ∼30% -67%
Geekbench 4.1/4.2
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
7865 Points ∼55%
Sony Xperia XZ2
14362 Points ∼100% +83%
Samsung Galaxy S9
6219 Points ∼43% -21%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (7462 - 8281, n=12)
7890 Points ∼55% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (836 - 14417, n=153)
3853 Points ∼27% -51%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
6701 Points ∼76%
Sony Xperia XZ2
8510 Points ∼97% +27%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
6711 Points ∼76% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9
8786 Points ∼100% +31%
Huawei P10 Plus
6267 Points ∼71% -6%
Nokia 8
6479 Points ∼74% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (6006 - 6799, n=17)
6517 Points ∼74% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (1099 - 10558, n=200)
3952 Points ∼45% -41%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
1952 Points ∼53%
Sony Xperia XZ2
2464 Points ∼67% +26%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
1911 Points ∼52% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S9
3688 Points ∼100% +89%
Huawei P10 Plus
1852 Points ∼50% -5%
Nokia 8
1924 Points ∼52% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (1809 - 1973, n=17)
1918 Points ∼52% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (394 - 4265, n=201)
1159 Points ∼31% -41%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
2946 Points ∼81%
Sony Xperia XZ2
3630 Points ∼100% +23%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
2986 Points ∼82% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9
2486 Points ∼68% -16%
Huawei P10 Plus
1679 Points ∼46% -43%
Nokia 8
3010 Points ∼83% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (1628 - 3157, n=17)
2887 Points ∼80% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (500 - 3669, n=303)
1544 Points ∼43% -48%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
3926 Points ∼77%
Sony Xperia XZ2
5122 Points ∼100% +30%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
3991 Points ∼78% +2%
Samsung Galaxy S9
3553 Points ∼69% -10%
Huawei P10 Plus
1767 Points ∼34% -55%
Nokia 8
3894 Points ∼76% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (3560 - 4072, n=17)
3913 Points ∼76% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (70 - 5220, n=303)
1049 Points ∼20% -73%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
3656 Points ∼78%
Sony Xperia XZ2
4693 Points ∼100% +28%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
3713 Points ∼79% +2%
Samsung Galaxy S9
3244 Points ∼69% -11%
Huawei P10 Plus
1747 Points ∼37% -52%
Nokia 8
3655 Points ∼78% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (2895 - 3810, n=17)
3616 Points ∼77% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (87 - 4734, n=311)
1006 Points ∼21% -72%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
2287 Points ∼63%
Sony Xperia XZ2
3642 Points ∼100% +59%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
3071 Points ∼84% +34%
Samsung Galaxy S9
2600 Points ∼71% +14%
Huawei P10 Plus
1662 Points ∼46% -27%
Nokia 8
3002 Points ∼82% +31%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (1574 - 3092, n=16)
2785 Points ∼76% +22%
Average of class Smartphone (474 - 3642, n=334)
1449 Points ∼40% -37%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
4511 Points ∼56%
Sony Xperia XZ2
8122 Points ∼100% +80%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
6035 Points ∼74% +34%
Samsung Galaxy S9
4569 Points ∼56% +1%
Huawei P10 Plus
2469 Points ∼30% -45%
Nokia 8
5818 Points ∼72% +29%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (4511 - 6231, n=16)
5736 Points ∼71% +27%
Average of class Smartphone (107 - 8312, n=334)
1423 Points ∼18% -68%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
3709 Points ∼58%
Sony Xperia XZ2
6378 Points ∼100% +72%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
4969 Points ∼78% +34%
Samsung Galaxy S9
3911 Points ∼61% +5%
Huawei P10 Plus
2229 Points ∼35% -40%
Nokia 8
4814 Points ∼75% +30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (3407 - 5030, n=16)
4624 Points ∼72% +25%
Average of class Smartphone (120 - 6378, n=342)
1223 Points ∼19% -67%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
21407 Points ∼60%
Sony Xperia XZ2
35856 Points ∼100% +67%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
21239 Points ∼59% -1%
Samsung Galaxy S9
26851 Points ∼75% +25%
Huawei P10 Plus
14934 Points ∼42% -30%
Nokia 8
20951 Points ∼58% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (6729 - 23046, n=19)
19205 Points ∼54% -10%
Average of class Smartphone (8065 - 36762, n=489)
12157 Points ∼34% -43%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
58018 Points ∼72%
Sony Xperia XZ2
80233 Points ∼100% +38%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
55485 Points ∼69% -4%
Samsung Galaxy S9
48433 Points ∼60% -17%
Huawei P10 Plus
33307 Points ∼42% -43%
Nokia 8
56531 Points ∼70% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (16794 - 58360, n=19)
53640 Points ∼67% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (2465 - 113380, n=489)
15596 Points ∼19% -73%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
42040 Points ∼67%
Sony Xperia XZ2
62926 Points ∼100% +50%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
40848 Points ∼65% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S9
41093 Points ∼65% -2%
Huawei P10 Plus
26156 Points ∼42% -38%
Nokia 8
40968 Points ∼65% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (12604 - 42278, n=19)
37835 Points ∼60% -10%
Average of class Smartphone (2915 - 64405, n=490)
13491 Points ∼21% -68%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
106 fps ∼71%
Sony Xperia XZ2
150 fps ∼100% +42%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
105 fps ∼70% -1%
Samsung Galaxy S9
144 fps ∼96% +36%
Huawei P10 Plus
56 fps ∼37% -47%
Nokia 8
99 fps ∼66% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (91 - 119, n=17)
109 fps ∼73% +3%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 177, n=517)
27.4 fps ∼18% -74%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
60 fps ∼99%
Sony Xperia XZ2
60 fps ∼99% 0%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
60 fps ∼99% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9
60 fps ∼99% 0%
Huawei P10 Plus
40 fps ∼66% -33%
Nokia 8
54 fps ∼89% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (54 - 79, n=18)
60.4 fps ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (6.9 - 120, n=520)
23.6 fps ∼39% -61%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
54 fps ∼66%
Sony Xperia XZ2
82 fps ∼100% +52%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
54 fps ∼66% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9
73 fps ∼89% +35%
Huawei P10 Plus
19 fps ∼23% -65%
Nokia 8
51 fps ∼62% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (43 - 64, n=18)
54.9 fps ∼67% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 88.2, n=440)
14.5 fps ∼18% -73%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
37 fps ∼63%
Sony Xperia XZ2
59 fps ∼100% +59%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
36 fps ∼61% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S9
45 fps ∼76% +22%
Huawei P10 Plus
29 fps ∼49% -22%
Nokia 8
31 fps ∼53% -16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (29 - 58, n=18)
42.7 fps ∼72% +15%
Average of class Smartphone (4.4 - 115, n=442)
14.6 fps ∼25% -61%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
41 fps ∼68%
Sony Xperia XZ2
60 fps ∼100% +46%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
40 fps ∼67% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S9
46 fps ∼77% +12%
Huawei P10 Plus
22 fps ∼37% -46%
Nokia 8
36 fps ∼60% -12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (21 - 43, n=18)
37.7 fps ∼63% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (1.3 - 60, n=304)
12.5 fps ∼21% -70%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
24 fps ∼44%
Sony Xperia XZ2
55 fps ∼100% +129%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
22 fps ∼40% -8%
Samsung Galaxy S9
24 fps ∼44% 0%
Huawei P10 Plus
12 fps ∼22% -50%
Nokia 8
17 fps ∼31% -29%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (15 - 59, n=18)
29.5 fps ∼54% +23%
Average of class Smartphone (2.6 - 110, n=306)
12.6 fps ∼23% -47%
GFXBench
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
26 fps ∼74%
Sony Xperia XZ2
35 fps ∼100% +35%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
25 fps ∼71% -4%
Samsung Galaxy S9
28 fps ∼80% +8%
Huawei P10 Plus
15 fps ∼43% -42%
Nokia 8
24 fps ∼69% -8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (22 - 26, n=18)
24.4 fps ∼70% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (0.72 - 35, n=236)
8.57 fps ∼24% -67%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco
15 fps ∼45%
Sony Xperia XZ2
33 fps ∼100% +120%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
15 fps ∼45% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9
14 fps ∼42% -7%
Huawei P10 Plus
10 fps ∼30% -33%
Nokia 8
13 fps ∼39% -13%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (11 - 50, n=18)
19.9 fps ∼60% +33%
Average of class Smartphone (1.1 - 50, n=239)
7.84 fps ∼24% -48%

Legend

 
Nokia 8 Sirocco Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Sony Xperia XZ2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Motorola Moto Z2 Force Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy S9 Samsung Exynos 9810, ARM Mali-G72 MP18, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Huawei P10 Plus HiSilicon Kirin 960, ARM Mali-G71 MP8, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
 
Nokia 8 Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
Sony Xperia XZ2 (Chrome 65)
89.54 Points ∼100% +44%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
67.721 Points ∼76% +9%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force (Chrome 63.0.3239.111)
66.689 Points ∼74% +7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (52.9 - 80.4, n=18)
66.1 Points ∼74% +6%
Nokia 8 (Chrome 61.0.3163.98)
63.365 Points ∼71% +2%
Nokia 8 Sirocco (Chrome 66)
62.157 Points ∼69%
Huawei P10 Plus
58.427 Points ∼65% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 224, n=372)
33.4 Points ∼37% -46%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Sony Xperia XZ2 (Chrome 65)
16774 Points ∼100% +45%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
15233 Points ∼91% +32%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force (Chrome 63.0.3239.111)
12929 Points ∼77% +12%
Nokia 8 Sirocco (Chrome 66)
11544 Points ∼69%
Nokia 8 (Chrome 61.0.3163.98)
11131 Points ∼66% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (3086 - 14300, n=19)
11120 Points ∼66% -4%
Huawei P10 Plus (Chrome 58.0.3029.83)
10213 Points ∼61% -12%
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 35255, n=508)
4996 Points ∼30% -57%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (718 - 59466, n=527)
11914 ms * ∼100% -148%
Nokia 8 Sirocco (Chrome 66)
4812.6 ms * ∼40%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (2425 - 4813, n=18)
3251 ms * ∼27% +32%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force (Chrome 63.0.3239.111)
3175.3 ms * ∼27% +34%
Nokia 8 (Chrome 61.0.3163.98)
3159.8 ms * ∼27% +34%
Huawei P10 Plus (Chrome 58.0.3029.83)
3107 ms * ∼26% +35%
Sony Xperia XZ2 (Chrome 65)
2394.3 ms * ∼20% +50%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
2077.8 ms * ∼17% +57%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
Sony Xperia XZ2 (Chrome 65)
262 Points ∼100% +28%
Nokia 8 Sirocco (Chrome 66)
204 Points ∼78%
Nokia 8 (Chrome 61.0.3163.98)
174 Points ∼66% -15%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
163 Points ∼62% -20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (57 - 204, n=16)
163 Points ∼62% -20%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force (Chrome 63.0.3239.111)
161 Points ∼61% -21%
Huawei P10 Plus
140 Points ∼53% -31%
Average of class Smartphone (27 - 362, n=249)
99.9 Points ∼38% -51%

* ... smaller is better

Nokia 8 SiroccoSony Xperia XZ2Motorola Moto Z2 ForceSamsung Galaxy S9Huawei P10 PlusNokia 8Average 128 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-8%
63%
1%
144%
-11%
92%
-63%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
30.12 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
54.67 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
67.18 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
33.61 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
51.66 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
61 (51.3 - 66.7, n=3)
43.9 (3.4 - 87.1, n=284)
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
34.25 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
77.37 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
79.22 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
54.04 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
76.85 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
77.8 (75.4 - 81, n=3)
62.3 (8.2 - 96.5, n=284)
Random Write 4KB
22.4
17
-24%
78.62
251%
23.07
3%
149.78
569%
14.57
-35%
105 (20 - 164, n=11)
369%
13.6 (0.14 - 164, n=566)
-39%
Random Read 4KB
140.7
149.4
6%
148.76
6%
131
-7%
173.06
23%
145.73
4%
139 (132 - 147, n=11)
-1%
34.9 (1.59 - 173, n=566)
-75%
Sequential Write 256KB
211.6
198.7
-6%
213.61
1%
206.94
-2%
182.64
-14%
199.15
-6%
201 (192 - 212, n=11)
-5%
73.2 (2.99 - 228, n=566)
-65%
Sequential Read 256KB
737.5
679.2
-8%
696.35
-6%
815.43
11%
732.94
-1%
680.39
-8%
771 (699 - 832, n=11)
5%
214 (12.1 - 832, n=566)
-71%
Arena of Valor
 ConfiguraçõesValor
 min60 fps
 high HD60 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Shadow Fight 3
 ConfiguraçõesValor
 high60 fps
 minimal60 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Carga Máxima
 36.5 °C36.9 °C37.5 °C 
 39.4 °C39.9 °C38.2 °C 
 39.9 °C40.8 °C39.4 °C 
Máximo: 40.8 °C
Médio: 38.7 °C
35.4 °C35.4 °C35.8 °C
33.8 °C37.5 °C40 °C
33.5 °C39.1 °C42.3 °C
Máximo: 42.3 °C
Médio: 37 °C
alimentação elétrica  31.7 °C | Temperatura do quarto 22 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2035.242.62532.945.33137.242.74031.739.35039.640.76328.336.18027.334.910026.932.312526.733.81602440.720020.944.825020.949.231519.555.240018.560.250017.563.863017.561.980015.760.5100015.864.1125016.668.7160015.869.7200015.476.7250015.579.631501680.6400015.881.950001681.4630016.384800016.3821000016.279.71250016.482.21600016.474.1SPL28.691.1N1.177median 16.4Nokia 8 Siroccomedian 68.7Delta2.113.731.629.525.435.925.33032.930.633.634.431.636.628.437.42741.420.8412243.721.346.120.853.321.256.419.460.119.563.317.764.417.961.717.867.317.373.617.474.116.775.817.278.618.281.817.982.417.686.617.783.817.879.517.977.918.17918.269.63091.61.382median 17.9Nokia 8median 69.61.311.6hearing rangehide median Pink Noise
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Nokia 8 Sirocco audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (91.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.3% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 12.6% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (25.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 49% of all tested devices in this class were better, 13% similar, 39% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 72% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 22% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Nokia 8 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (91.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.7% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (6.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.7% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 11.9% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 32% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 56% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 61% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 32% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Consumo de energia
desligadodarklight 0 / 0.14 Watt
Ociosodarkmidlight 0.78 / 1.53 / 1.57 Watt
Carga midlight 3.49 / 6.96 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Nokia 8 Sirocco
3260 mAh
Sony Xperia XZ2
3180 mAh
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
2730 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S9
3000 mAh
Huawei P10 Plus
3750 mAh
Nokia 8
3090 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998)
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-29%
29%
19%
-66%
-33%
-22%
-9%
Idle Minimum *
0.78
0.72
8%
0.52
33%
0.65
17%
1.03
-32%
0.86
-10%
0.799 (0.45 - 2.2, n=17)
-2%
0.872 (0.2 - 3.4, n=587)
-12%
Idle Average *
1.53
2.21
-44%
0.84
45%
0.81
47%
2.61
-71%
2.13
-39%
1.895 (0.84 - 4.5, n=17)
-24%
1.703 (0.6 - 6.2, n=586)
-11%
Idle Maximum *
1.57
2.22
-41%
0.85
46%
0.92
41%
2.83
-80%
2.16
-38%
1.999 (0.85 - 5.2, n=17)
-27%
1.968 (0.74 - 6.6, n=587)
-25%
Load Average *
3.49
4.6
-32%
2.71
22%
4.76
-36%
7.03
-101%
4.65
-33%
4.7 (2.71 - 8.8, n=17)
-35%
3.99 (0.8 - 10.8, n=581)
-14%
Load Maximum *
6.96
9.34
-34%
7.2
-3%
5.16
26%
10.08
-45%
9.99
-44%
8.53 (6.96 - 11.2, n=17)
-23%
5.63 (1.2 - 14.2, n=581)
19%

* ... smaller is better

Tempo de Execução da Bateria
Ocioso (sem WLAN, min brilho)
26h 43min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
11h 33min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
12h 05min
Carga (máximo brilho)
5h 17min
Nokia 8 Sirocco
3260 mAh
Sony Xperia XZ2
3180 mAh
Motorola Moto Z2 Force
2730 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S9
3000 mAh
Huawei P10 Plus
3750 mAh
Nokia 8
3090 mAh
Battery Runtime
-16%
1%
-31%
-7%
-9%
Reader / Idle
1603
1402
-13%
1630
2%
1182
-26%
1655
3%
1506
-6%
H.264
725
722
0%
811
12%
609
-16%
756
4%
733
1%
WiFi v1.3
693
679
-2%
531
-23%
474
-32%
760
10%
650
-6%
Load
317
159
-50%
354
12%
164
-48%
174
-45%
237
-25%

Pro

+ Carcaça muito estável e de alta qualidade
+ Longa duração da bateria
+ É possível jogar a 60 fps
+ Tela táctil muito precisa
+ Bom microfone
+ Android puro com atualização garantida
+ Grande capacidade de armazenamento

Contra

- Sem conector de áudio de 3,5-mm
- Comportamento estranho no Google Maps
- Velocidades médias do Wi-Fi
- Câmera selfie nada impressionante
- Efeitos de cores estranhos devido à tela curva
- Temperaturas relativamente altas sob uso intenso
- Afogamento significante depois de longos períodos de uso intenso
Review: Nokia 8 Sirocco. Test unit provided by notebooksbilliger.de
Review: Nokia 8 Sirocco. Test unit provided by notebooksbilliger.de

O Nokia 8 Sirocco definitivamente é um smartphone para individualistas; a Nokia cumpriu sua promessa, dando a esse telefone um nome bastante particular. O telefone tem todas as características de um telefone celular de gama alta atual: Durações de bateria longas, alto desempenho, uma tela de alta resolução, jogos a 60 FPS, uma câmera dupla decente e LTE rápido. A carcaça parece muito elegante, é extremamente estável e também resistente à água e poeira.

Mas o Sirocco não é perfeito: A Nokia teria que encontrar uma solução melhor para o efeito de cor estranha que a tela causa no conteúdo branco, lidar com o estranho comportamento do GPS no Google Maps e equipar o dispositivo com uma câmera frontal melhor. Os alto-falantes podem ser muito fortes, mas o som não está balanceado e não há certificação de áudio de alta resolução. O desenvolvimento de calor é bastante forte sob uso intenso e o desempenho do SoC não é constante e cai significativamente após um curto período de tempo sob uso intenso.

O Nokia 8 Sirocco não é perfeito, mas é um bom smartphone de gama alta para os individualistas.

Apesar de suas fraquezas, o Nokia 8 Sirocco tem estilo e também pode oferecer muitas vantagens, incluindo um generoso conjunto de acessórios e Android puro com garantia de atualização. Portanto, podemos recomendar o Nokia 8 Sirocco a todos que estiverem prontos para aceitar as deficiências mencionadas acima, em troca de algo diferente dos modelos comuns e medíocres.

Nokia 8 Sirocco - 05/21/2018 v6
Florian Wimmer

Acabamento
93%
Teclado
68 / 75 → 90%
Mouse
93%
Conectividade
42 / 60 → 70%
Peso
90%
Bateria
94%
Pantalha
80%
Desempenho do jogos
64 / 63 → 100%
Desempenho da aplicação
61 / 70 → 87%
Temperatura
88%
Ruído
100%
Audio
71 / 91 → 78%
Camera
81%
Médio
79%
87%
Smartphone - Médio equilibrado

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Análises e revisões de portáteis e celulares > Análises > Análises > Breve Análise do Smartphone Nokia 8 Sirocco
Florian Wimmer, 2018-06- 3 (Update: 2018-06-21)