Notebookcheck

Breve Análise do Smartphone Phab 2 Pro

Allen Ngo (traduzido por Ricardo Soto), 12/16/2016

Tango para as massas. O primeiro smartphone Tango de consumo é um pouco maior que o esperado e nem sempre funciona perfeitamente, mas afortunadamente está dentro de um design sólido e potente.

Lenovo Phab 2 Pro (Phab Serie)
Processador
Qualcomm Snapdragon 652 MSM8976 1.8 GHz
Placa gráfica
Memória
4096 MB 
Pantalha
6.4 polegadas 16:9, 2560x1440 pixel 459 PPI, Capacitiva de 10 pontos, IPS, Brilhante: sim
Disco rígido
64 GB eMMC Flash, 64 GB 
, 59.6 GB livre
Conexões
1 USB 2.0, Conexões Audio: 3.5 mm, Card Reader: MicroSD, 1 Leitor de Impressões Digitais, Brightness Sensor, Sensores: Proximidade, Acelerômetro, Magnetômetro, Fotosensor, Giroscópio, Barômetro, USB-OTG
Funcionamento em rede
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 4.0, GSM: B2/3/5/8, UMTS: B1/2/4/5/8, LTE: B2/4/5/7/12/13/17; LTE Cat. 7: max. 300 MBit/s im Download, max. 50 MBit/s im Upload, Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Tamanho
altura x largura x profundidade (em mm): 10.7 x 179.8 x 88.6
Bateria
4050 mAh Lítio-Polímero, Tempo de conversação 2G (de acordo com o fabricante): 18 h, Standby 2G (de acordo com o fabricante): 312 h
Sistema Operativo
Android 6.0 Marshmallow
Camera
Primary Camera: 16 MPix PDAF, rastreamento de profundidade e movimento
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix f/2.2
Características adicionais
Teclado: virtuelles Keyboard, Ladegerät, USB-Kabel, SIM-Tool, Tango, McAfee Security, Netflix, 12 Meses Garantia
peso
259 g
Preço
500 Euro

 

Bottom: Micro-USB port
Bottom: Micro-USB port
Left: Dual-SIM slot
Left: Dual-SIM slot
Top: 3.5 mm audio
Top: 3.5 mm audio
Right: Volume rocker, Power button
Right: Volume rocker, Power button
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Google Pixel XL 2016
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (Linksys EA8500, 5.0 GHz)
515 MBit/s ∼100% +65%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
313 MBit/s ∼61%
Huawei Mate 9
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (Linksys EA8500, 5.0 GHz)
259 MBit/s ∼50% -17%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (Linksys EA8500, 5.0 GHz)
32.9 MBit/s ∼6% -89%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Google Pixel XL 2016
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (Linksys EA8500, 5.0 GHz)
435 MBit/s ∼100% +67%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
261 MBit/s ∼60%
Huawei Mate 9
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (Linksys EA8500, 5.0 GHz)
165 MBit/s ∼38% -37%
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (Linksys EA8500, 5.0 GHz)
31.2 MBit/s ∼7% -88%
465.7
cd/m²
489.5
cd/m²
466.8
cd/m²
474.3
cd/m²
472.4
cd/m²
482.2
cd/m²
485.6
cd/m²
498.1
cd/m²
471.9
cd/m²
Distribuição do brilho
X-Rite i1Pro Basic 2
Máximo: 498.1 cd/m² Médio: 478.5 cd/m² Minimum: 8.22 cd/m²
iluminação: 93 %
iluminação com acumulador: 472.4 cd/m²
Contraste: 980:1 (Preto: 0.482 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 7 | - Ø
ΔE Greyscale 7.9 | - Ø
83.1% sRGB (Calman)
Gamma: 2.34
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
IPS, 6.4, 2560x1440
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
Retina HD, IPS, 5.5, 1920x1080
Huawei Mate 9
IPS, 5.9, 1920x1080
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
IPS, 5.5, 1920x1080
Google Pixel XL 2016
AMOLED, 5.5, 2560x1440
Response Times
44%
13%
6%
161%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
58.4
29
50%
57
2%
56
4%
4
93%
Response Time Black / White *
38.8
24
38%
30
23%
36
7%
4
90%
PWM Frequency
59.52
238.1
300%
Screen
45%
34%
9%
20%
Brightness
479
553
15%
680
42%
633
32%
408
-15%
Brightness Distribution
93
97
4%
93
0%
93
0%
85
-9%
Black Level *
0.482
0.35
27%
0.42
13%
0.66
-37%
Contrast
980
1591
62%
1657
69%
997
2%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
7
1.4
80%
4.3
39%
4.9
30%
4
43%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
7.9
1.3
84%
4.8
39%
5.8
27%
3.2
59%
Gamma
2.34 103%
2.21 109%
2.33 103%
2.26 106%
2.19 110%
CCT
7826 83%
6667 97%
7255 90%
7840 83%
7037 92%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
63.1
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
99.83
Total Average (Program / Settings)
45% / 45%
24% / 28%
8% / 8%
91% / 80%

* ... smaller is better

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
38.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 7.2 ms rise
↘ 31.6 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. » 94 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (27.1 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
58.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 23.2 ms rise
↘ 35.2 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. » 92 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (43.7 ms).

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 59.52 Hz30 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 59.52 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 30 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 59.52 Hz is very low, so the flickering may cause eyestrain and headaches after extended use.

In comparison: 59 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 4352 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

AnTuTu Benchmark v6 - Total Score
Google Pixel XL 2016 (Version 6.2.1)
138641 Points ∼61% +62%
Samsung Galaxy S7
127902 Points ∼56% +50%
Huawei Mate 9
124087 Points ∼54% +45%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
85438 Points ∼37%
Sony Xperia XA
48331 Points ∼21% -43%
Fairphone 2
37549 Points ∼16% -56%
Geekbench 4.0
Compute RenderScript Score
Google Pixel XL 2016
7047 Points ∼86% +109%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
3373 Points ∼41%
Huawei Mate 9
3191 Points ∼39% -5%
Fairphone 2
1839 Points ∼22% -45%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score
Huawei Mate 9
5629 Points ∼21% +63%
Google Pixel XL 2016
4167 Points ∼16% +21%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
3448 Points ∼13%
Fairphone 2
1307 Points ∼5% -62%
64 Bit Single-Core Score
Huawei Mate 9
1947 Points ∼36% +33%
Google Pixel XL 2016
1513 Points ∼28% +3%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
1462 Points ∼27%
Fairphone 2
798 Points ∼15% -45%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics
Google Pixel XL 2016
2044 Points ∼66%
Huawei Mate 9
1997 Points ∼64%
Sony Xperia XA
1283 Points ∼41%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
Points ∼0%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics
Google Pixel XL 2016
2863 Points ∼41%
Huawei Mate 9
2142 Points ∼31%
Sony Xperia XA
357 Points ∼5%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
Points ∼0%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited
Google Pixel XL 2016
2629 Points ∼52%
Huawei Mate 9
2108 Points ∼41%
Sony Xperia XA
425 Points ∼8%
Fairphone 2
Points ∼0%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
Points ∼0%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics
Huawei Mate 9
2104 Points ∼68% +13%
Google Pixel XL 2016
2009 Points ∼65% +8%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
1862 Points ∼60%
Sony Xperia XA
1249 Points ∼40% -33%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics
Google Pixel XL 2016
4406 Points ∼36% +217%
Huawei Mate 9
2421 Points ∼20% +74%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
1389 Points ∼11%
Sony Xperia XA
525 Points ∼4% -62%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited
Google Pixel XL 2016
3483 Points ∼52% +137%
Huawei Mate 9
2343 Points ∼35% +59%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
1472 Points ∼22%
Sony Xperia XA
603 Points ∼9% -59%
Fairphone 2
Points ∼0% -100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics
Huawei Mate 9
2117 Points ∼70% +5%
Samsung Galaxy S7
2022 Points ∼67% 0%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
2014 Points ∼67%
Google Pixel XL 2016
1935 Points ∼64% -4%
Sony Xperia XA
1236 Points ∼41% -39%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics
Google Pixel XL 2016
2820 Points ∼52% +274%
Huawei Mate 9
2294 Points ∼43% +204%
Samsung Galaxy S7
2216 Points ∼41% +194%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
755 Points ∼14%
Sony Xperia XA
306 Points ∼6% -59%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1)
Google Pixel XL 2016
2560 Points ∼66% +192%
Huawei Mate 9
2240 Points ∼58% +155%
Samsung Galaxy S7
2170 Points ∼56% +147%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
877 Points ∼23%
Sony Xperia XA
422 Points ∼11% -52%
Fairphone 2
Points ∼0% -100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics
Huawei Mate 9
2123 Points ∼73% +15%
Samsung Galaxy S7
2010 Points ∼69% +9%
Google Pixel XL 2016
1902 Points ∼65% +3%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
1844 Points ∼63%
Sony Xperia XA
1259 Points ∼43% -32%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics
Google Pixel XL 2016
3935 Points ∼51% +210%
Samsung Galaxy S7
3018 Points ∼39% +137%
Huawei Mate 9
2448 Points ∼32% +93%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
1271 Points ∼16%
Sony Xperia XA
525 Points ∼7% -59%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0
Google Pixel XL 2016
3180 Points ∼64% +133%
Samsung Galaxy S7
2715 Points ∼55% +99%
Huawei Mate 9
2367 Points ∼48% +73%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
1365 Points ∼27%
Sony Xperia XA
603 Points ∼12% -56%
Fairphone 2
Points ∼0% -100%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics
Samsung Galaxy S7
19944 Points ∼29% +76%
Google Pixel XL 2016
18222 Points ∼26% +60%
Huawei Mate 9
15104 Points ∼22% +33%
Sony Xperia XA
12138 Points ∼18% +7%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
11364 Points ∼16%
Fairphone 2
4301 Points ∼6% -62%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score
Huawei Mate 9
35626 Points ∼8% +69%
Samsung Galaxy S7
33348 Points ∼7% +58%
Google Pixel XL 2016
32652 Points ∼7% +55%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
21103 Points ∼5%
Sony Xperia XA
10916 Points ∼2% -48%
Fairphone 2
10153 Points ∼2% -52%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score
Samsung Galaxy S7
29015 Points ∼15% +64%
Google Pixel XL 2016
27766 Points ∼14% +57%
Huawei Mate 9
27364 Points ∼14% +54%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
17727 Points ∼9%
Sony Xperia XA
11156 Points ∼6% -37%
Fairphone 2
7796 Points ∼4% -56%
1920x1080 Ice Storm Extreme Physics
Fairphone 2
4422 Points ∼7%
1920x1080 Ice Storm Extreme Graphics
Fairphone 2
7283 Points ∼2%
1920x1080 Ice Storm Extreme Score
Fairphone 2
6368 Points ∼3%
1280x720 Ice Storm Standard Physics
Fairphone 2
4282 Points ∼3%
1280x720 Ice Storm Standard Graphics
Fairphone 2
10184 Points ∼1%
1280x720 Ice Storm Standard Score
Fairphone 2
7796 Points ∼4%
BaseMark OS II
Web
Huawei Mate 9
1076 Points ∼70% +11%
Google Pixel XL 2016
977 Points ∼63% +1%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
966 Points ∼63%
Samsung Galaxy S7
957 Points ∼62% -1%
Sony Xperia XA
717 Points ∼46% -26%
Fairphone 2
9 Points ∼1% -99%
Graphics
Google Pixel XL 2016
5017 Points ∼58% +209%
Huawei Mate 9
3939 Points ∼46% +143%
Fairphone 2
1768 Points ∼21% +9%
Samsung Galaxy S7
1723 Points ∼20% +6%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
1623 Points ∼19%
Sony Xperia XA
669 Points ∼8% -59%
Memory
Huawei Mate 9
3850 Points ∼90% +98%
Samsung Galaxy S7
2244 Points ∼52% +16%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
1940 Points ∼45%
Google Pixel XL 2016
1677 Points ∼39% -14%
Sony Xperia XA
1076 Points ∼25% -45%
Fairphone 2
433 Points ∼10% -78%
System
Samsung Galaxy S7
4217 Points ∼64% +84%
Google Pixel XL 2016
3889 Points ∼59% +69%
Huawei Mate 9
3616 Points ∼55% +57%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
2297 Points ∼35%
Sony Xperia XA
2289 Points ∼35% 0%
Fairphone 2
1401 Points ∼21% -39%
Overall
Huawei Mate 9
2772 Points ∼75% +70%
Google Pixel XL 2016
2378 Points ∼64% +46%
Samsung Galaxy S7
1987 Points ∼54% +22%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
1626 Points ∼44%
Sony Xperia XA
1043 Points ∼28% -36%
Fairphone 2
317 Points ∼9% -81%

Legend

 
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 652 MSM8976, Qualcomm Adreno 510, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
Huawei Mate 9 HiSilicon Kirin 960, ARM Mali-G71 MP8, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Google Pixel XL 2016 Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Qualcomm Adreno 530, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
Fairphone 2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 801 MSM8974AA, Qualcomm Adreno 330, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
Sony Xperia XA Mediatek Helio P10 MT6755, ARM Mali-T860 MP2, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy S7 Samsung Exynos 8890 Octa, ARM Mali-T880 MP12, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
Octane V2 - Total Score
Samsung Galaxy S7
13161 Points ∼27% +49%
Huawei Mate 9 (Chrome 54)
11897 Points ∼24% +35%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro (Chrome 54.0.2840.85)
8837 Points ∼18%
Google Pixel XL 2016 (Chrome 53)
8690 Points ∼18% -2%
Fairphone 2 (Chrome 54.0.2840.85)
4249 Points ∼9% -52%
Sony Xperia XA (Chrome 51)
4046 Points ∼8% -54%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Sony Xperia XA (Chrome 51)
9609.8 ms * ∼16% -167%
Fairphone 2 (Chrome 54.0.2840.85)
7772.9 ms * ∼13% -116%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro (Chrome 54.0.2840.85)
3597.8 ms * ∼6%
Huawei Mate 9 (Chrome 54)
2733.7 ms * ∼5% +24%
Google Pixel XL 2016 (Chrome 53)
2653.6 ms * ∼4% +26%
Samsung Galaxy S7
2561.5 ms * ∼4% +29%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
Samsung Galaxy S7
166 Points ∼29% +50%
Huawei Mate 9 (Chrome 54)
152 Points ∼26% +37%
Google Pixel XL 2016 (Chrome 53)
126 Points ∼22% +14%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
111 Points ∼19%
Sony Xperia XA (Chrome 51)
72 Points ∼12% -35%
Fairphone 2 (Chrome 54.0.2840.85)
65 Points ∼11% -41%
JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
Samsung Galaxy S7
74 Points ∼0% +46%
Huawei Mate 9 (Chrome 54)
68.6 Points ∼0% +35%
Google Pixel XL 2016 (Chrome 53)
55.4 Points ∼0% +9%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro (Chrome 54.0.2840.85)
50.703 Points ∼0%
Sony Xperia XA (Chrome 51)
27.5 Points ∼0% -46%
Fairphone 2 (Chrome 54.0.2840.85)
20.656 Points ∼0% -59%

* ... smaller is better

Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
64 GB eMMC Flash
Huawei Mate 9
64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
Google Pixel XL 2016
32 GB eMMC Flash
Sony Xperia XA
16 GB eMMC Flash
Samsung Galaxy S7
32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
AndroBench 3-5
30%
26%
-21%
40%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
54.81 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
29.53 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-46%
50.68 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-8%
53.6 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-2%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
71.88 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
53.97 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-25%
72.87 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
1%
72.33 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
1%
Random Write 4KB
12.92
8.77
-32%
14.56
13%
10.6
-18%
16.01
24%
Random Read 4KB
38.53
94.69
146%
87.67
128%
22.05
-43%
85.9
123%
Sequential Write 256KB
138.01
142.92
4%
83.38
-40%
68.64
-50%
145.72
6%
Sequential Read 256KB
254.99
594.23
133%
258.23
1%
240.43
-6%
483.82
90%
Lightmark - 1920x1080 1080p
LG G5
25.26 fps ∼69% +203%
Huawei Mate 9
19.14 fps ∼52% +130%
Samsung Galaxy S7
13.86 fps ∼38% +66%
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
8.33 fps ∼23%
Huawei Mate 8
7.9 fps ∼22% -5%
Carga Máxima
 34.8 °C34.2 °C37 °C 
 35.2 °C34 °C41.6 °C 
 34.8 °C33.6 °C36 °C 
Máximo: 41.6 °C
Médio: 35.7 °C
33.4 °C33.8 °C34.2 °C
33.6 °C33.8 °C34 °C
33.6 °C34 °C34 °C
Máximo: 34.2 °C
Médio: 33.8 °C
Temperatura do quarto 20 °C | Fluke 62 Mini IR Thermometer
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2037.636.22534.835.33133.734.34033.933.85033.333.56331.331.28032.230.610029.72912530.631.116027.441.320026.850.42502654.831524.858.340023.960.950023.464.463022.768.680022.467100022.667.912502267.1160021.763.8200021.563.8250021.268315021.172.1400020.978.2500020.978.363002172.780002171.11000021.272.3125002168.41600021.257.7SPL3484.5N2.256.8median 22Lenovo Phab 2 Promedian 67Delta1.86.635.335.132.931.831.83236.535.132.428.93328.936.328.848.32761.52752.924.860.92462.822.763.32269.521.267.82174.82075.919.472.718.97117.770.117.86917.671.817.668.117.671.417.673.717.670.417.571.617.671.617.669.617.459.717.583.630.662.51.5median 69.6Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHzmedian 17.84.62.4hearing rangehide median Pink Noise
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.46 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.3% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 7% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 86% worse
» The best had a delta of 14%, average was 26%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 41% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 51% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 22%, worst was 53%

Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 11.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (9.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 2% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 96% worse
» The best had a delta of 9%, average was 18%, worst was 41%
Compared to all devices tested
» 1% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 22%, worst was 53%

Consumo de energia
desligadodarklight 0.08 / 1.8 Watt
Ociosodarkmidlight 3 / 4.1 / 4.2 Watt
Carga midlight 10.4 / 8.1 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
652 MSM8976, Adreno 510, 64 GB eMMC Flash, IPS, 2560x1440, 6.4
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
A10 Fusion, A10 Fusion GPU, 128 GB NVMe, IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5
Huawei Mate 9
Kirin 960, Mali-G71 MP8, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, IPS, 1920x1080, 5.9
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
625, Adreno 506, 64 GB eMMC Flash, IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5
Google Pixel XL 2016
821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530, 32 GB eMMC Flash, AMOLED, 2560x1440, 5.5
Power Consumption
44%
46%
54%
60%
Idle Minimum *
3
0.77
74%
0.78
74%
0.83
72%
0.53
82%
Idle Average *
4.1
2.04
50%
2.13
48%
2.11
49%
1.07
74%
Idle Maximum *
4.2
2.24
47%
2.17
48%
2.12
50%
1.12
73%
Load Average *
10.4
4.69
55%
6.32
39%
3.41
67%
5.53
47%
Load Maximum *
8.1
8.66
-7%
6.49
20%
5.46
33%
6.26
23%

* ... smaller is better

Tempo de Execução da Bateria
Ocioso (sem WLAN, min brilho)
18h 39min
Navegar com WLAN v1.3
8h 28min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
9h 27min
Carga (máximo brilho)
3h 10min
Lenovo Phab 2 Pro
652 MSM8976, Adreno 510,  Wh
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
A10 Fusion, A10 Fusion GPU, 11.02 Wh
Huawei Mate 9
Kirin 960, Mali-G71 MP8,  Wh
Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL
625, Adreno 506,  Wh
Google Pixel XL 2016
821 MSM8996 Pro, Adreno 530,  Wh
Battery Runtime
33%
34%
59%
13%
Reader / Idle
1119
1835
64%
1538
37%
1502
34%
1333
19%
Load
190
225
18%
219
15%
352
85%
230
21%
WiFi v1.3
508
587
16%
758
49%
797
57%
505
-1%

Pro

+ Dual-SIM com suporte para bandas GSM 4G dos EUA
+ Chassi de alumínio bem feito e rígido
+ Temperaturas geralmente frias da superfície
+ Porta Micro-USB com carga rápida
+ Ótima qualidade do viva voz
+ Grande tela QHD de 6,4 polegadas
+ Rápido desempenho da CPU
+ Tango integrado

Contra

- Bateria não removível; duração média
- Posicionamento desconfortável do leitor de digitais
- Sem NFC, USB Type-C, ou carregamento sem fio
- As cores da tela poderiam mais precisas
- Grande e pesado; mais de 10 mm de espessura
- Tempos de resposta médios da tela
- Desempenho médio da GPU
In review: Lenovo Phab 2 Pro. Test model provided by Lenovo US.
In review: Lenovo Phab 2 Pro. Test model provided by Lenovo US.

O grande destaque do Phab 2 Pro é seu exclusivo hardware Tango Em seu estado atual, no entanto, o recurso é mais que uma novidade que é uma implementação prática. Além de seu potencial, a Lenovo prometeu a habilidade de navegar em interiores e entre quartos onde os sinais de GPS normalmente são fracos A pesquisa de rotas para um museu ou aeroporto internacional, por exemplo, ainda não está disponível e seria totalmente dependente do suporte do desenvolvedor. É muito cedo para catalogar o Tango como um "gimmick", mas o seu software se sente muito simples e não demonstra o potencial escondido atrás da área da tecnologia educativa.

Para os usuários que não tenham interesse no Tango ou que são iniciantes nesta tecnologia, os principais recursos do smartphone do Phab 2 Pro ainda são bastante sólios. A tela é grande e nítida com suporte para 4G e MicroSD, e o seu viva voz é muito claro em comparação com concorrentes de 5-polegadas. O desempenho da CPU é veloz e o smartphone se sente denso para segurar. Suas outras especificações são apenas médias para a categoria, incluindo a GPU Adreno 510 de gama média, duração da bateria, e cores da tela e tempos de resposta. Suas grandes dimensões requerem essencialmente uma operação com as duas mãos e poderiam fazer com que os usuários desejem uma versão menor com o mesmo hardware Tango.

Como um dos primeiros smartphones oficiais da Lenovo para o mercado dos EUA, o Phab 2 Pro se destaca com o seu bom tamanho e suporte nativo para Tango. No entanto, se nada disso for atraente, os usuários ficarão com uma experiência Android respeitável (ou média).

Lenovo Phab 2 Pro - 12/06/2016 v6
Allen Ngo

Acabamento
87%
Teclado
85 / 75 → 100%
Mouse
94%
Conectividade
37 / 60 → 62%
Peso
87%
Bateria
91%
Pantalha
84%
Desempenho do jogos
38 / 63 → 60%
Desempenho da aplicação
55 / 70 → 78%
Temperatura
92%
Ruído
100%
Audio
63 / 91 → 69%
Camera
61%
Médio
75%
83%
Smartphone - Médio equilibrado

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Análises e revisões de portáteis e celulares > Análises > Análises > Breve Análise do Smartphone Phab 2 Pro
Allen Ngo, 2016-12-16 (Update: 2017-01- 2)