Notebookcheck

Breve Análise do Smartphone Razer Phone 2

Inge Schwabe, 👁 Florian Schmitt (traduzido por Ricardo Soto), 12/03/2018

Game On. A Razer está se preparando para a segunda rodada. Seguindo o primeiro smartphone de jogos real chamado simplesmente, Phone, eles apresentaram a - surpresa - Phone 2. Não se deixe enganar pelo seu nome sem brilho: o Phone 2 é tudo, menos enjoado. Vamos dar uma olhada no que o novo smartphone para jogos pode fazer e quais são seus pontos fracos.

Razer Phone 2 (Phone Serie)
Processador
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Octa-Core, 64 Bit
Placa gráfica
Memória
8192 MB 
, LPDDR4X
Pantalha
5.72 polegadas 19,5:9, 2560 x 1440 pixel 513 PPI, Tela táctil capacitiva, multitouch de 10 pontos, taxa de exibição de 120 Hz, IGZO LCD, Tela UltraMotion de 120 Hz, Corning Gorilla Glass 5, Brilhante: sim
Disco rígido
64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 64 GB 
, 48 GB livre
Conexões
1 USB 2.0, Conexões Audio: Conector combinado para fones e microfone de 3,5 mm via DAC de 24-bit USB-C, Card Reader: microSD de até 1 TB, 1 Leitor de Impressões Digitais, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensores: Sensor de proximidade, acelerômetro, bússola, giroscópio, Sensor de passos
Funcionamento em rede
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM: 850/900/1,800/1,900, WCDMA: 1/2/3/4/5/8, FDD-LTE: 1/2/3/4/5/7/8/12/13/14/17/18/19/20/26/28/29/30/32/66/71, CAT18, Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Tamanho
altura x largura x profundidade (em mm): 8.5 x 158.5 x 78.99
Bateria
15.2 Wh, 4000 mAh Lítio-Ion
Sistema Operativo
Android 8.1 Oreo
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix wide-angle (12 MP, f/1.75, OIS) + telephoto (12 MP, f/2.6), 4K video
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix f/2.0
Características adicionais
Alto falantes: Alto-falantes estéreo, Teclado: virtual, FOnte de alimentação modular, cabo USB-C, 24-bit USB-C DAC, SIM tool, guia de início rápido, informação de segurança e garantia, Nova-Launcher, ChromaKit, Dolby Atmos, Razer Cortex, Game-Booster, theme store, 24 Meses Garantia, IP67, Qualcomm QuickCharge 4.0+, carregamento sem fio, notificações via Razer Chroma RGB logo, LTE CAT18, head SAR: 0.508 W/kg, body SAR: 1.493 W/kg
peso
219 g, Suprimento de energia: 94 g
Preço
849 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Size Comparison

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Razer Phone 2017
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
665 MBit/s ∼100% +10%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
A12 Bionic GPU, A12 Bionic, 64 GB eMMC Flash
624 MBit/s ∼94% +3%
Razer Phone 2
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
604 (min: 420, max: 626) MBit/s ∼91%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=303)
210 MBit/s ∼32% -65%
Xiaomi Black Shark
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
116 MBit/s ∼17% -81%
Asus ROG Phone
Adreno 630, 845, 512 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
103 (min: 86, max: 109) MBit/s ∼15% -83%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Razer Phone 2017
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
661 MBit/s ∼100% +70%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
A12 Bionic GPU, A12 Bionic, 64 GB eMMC Flash
602 MBit/s ∼91% +55%
Razer Phone 2
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
388 (min: 234, max: 484) MBit/s ∼59%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=303)
205 MBit/s ∼31% -47%
Xiaomi Black Shark
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
117 MBit/s ∼18% -70%
Asus ROG Phone
Adreno 630, 845, 512 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
96.7 (min: 50, max: 106) MBit/s ∼15% -75%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630Tooltip
Razer Phone 2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø610 (568-626)
Asus ROG Phone Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø103 (86-109)
Razer Phone 2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø390 (269-484)
Asus ROG Phone Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø95.2 (50-106)
Garmin Edge 520 - overview
Garmin Edge 520 - overview
Garmin Edge 520 - bridge
Garmin Edge 520 - bridge
Garmin Edge 520 - woods
Garmin Edge 520 - woods
Razer Phone 2 - overview
Razer Phone 2 - overview
Razer Phone 2 - bridge
Razer Phone 2 - bridge
Razer Phone 2 - woods
Razer Phone 2 - woods
Main camera
Main camera
Main camera portrait mode
Main camera portrait mode
Main camera standard
Main camera 2x tele

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
Reference card
Reference card
Reference card details
Reference card details
557
cd/m²
555
cd/m²
554
cd/m²
585
cd/m²
600
cd/m²
578
cd/m²
574
cd/m²
588
cd/m²
601
cd/m²
Distribuição do brilho
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Máximo: 601 cd/m² Médio: 576.9 cd/m² Minimum: 8.9 cd/m²
iluminação: 92 %
iluminação com acumulador: 600 cd/m²
Contraste: 1935:1 (Preto: 0.31 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.43 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.2
ΔE Greyscale 4.4 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
97.7% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.388
Razer Phone 2
IGZO LCD, UltraMotion 120 Hz Display, 2560x1440, 5.72
Razer Phone 2017
IGZO LCD, 120 Hz, Wide Color Gamut, 1440x2560, 5.72
Asus ROG Phone
AMOLED, 2160x1080, 6
Apple iPhone Xs Max
OLED, 2688x1242, 6.5
Xiaomi Black Shark
IPS, 2160x1080, 5.99
Screen
-5%
-31%
31%
-34%
Brightness middle
600
436
-27%
597
0%
656
9%
549
-8%
Brightness
577
417
-28%
637
10%
659
14%
541
-6%
Brightness Distribution
92
92
0%
83
-10%
88
-4%
95
3%
Black Level *
0.31
0.16
48%
0.42
-35%
Contrast
1935
2725
41%
1307
-32%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
3.43
3.88
-13%
5.12
-49%
1.7
50%
6.08
-77%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
6.36
7.96
-25%
10.9
-71%
2.8
56%
10.69
-68%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
4.4
5.8
-32%
7.3
-66%
1.7
61%
6.6
-50%
Gamma
2.388 92%
2.45 90%
2.203 100%
1.998 110%
2.305 95%
CCT
6069 107%
7657 85%
7371 88%
6487 100%
8399 77%

* ... 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 2451 Hz ≤ 20 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 2451 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 20 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 2451 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8943 (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
12 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 5 ms rise
↘ 7 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 8 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (25.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
18 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 9 ms rise
↘ 9 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 7 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (41 ms).
Geekbench 4.1/4.2
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
13896 Points ∼96%
Razer Phone 2017
7931 Points ∼55% -43%
Asus ROG Phone
14489 Points ∼100% +4%
Xiaomi Black Shark
13620 Points ∼94% -2%
Sony Xperia XZ3
13194 Points ∼91% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (10876 - 14489, n=19)
13635 Points ∼94% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (836 - 21070, n=197)
4524 Points ∼31% -67%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
9018 Points ∼80%
Razer Phone 2017
6742 Points ∼60% -25%
Asus ROG Phone
9231 Points ∼82% +2%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
11244 Points ∼100% +25%
Xiaomi Black Shark
8453 Points ∼75% -6%
Sony Xperia XZ3
7934 Points ∼71% -12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7754 - 9231, n=21)
8655 Points ∼77% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (883 - 11598, n=247)
4308 Points ∼38% -52%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
2409 Points ∼50%
Razer Phone 2017
1942 Points ∼41% -19%
Asus ROG Phone
2500 Points ∼52% +4%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
4774 Points ∼100% +98%
Xiaomi Black Shark
2437 Points ∼51% +1%
Sony Xperia XZ3
2272 Points ∼48% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2272 - 2500, n=21)
2417 Points ∼51% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (394 - 4824, n=248)
1270 Points ∼27% -47%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
8701 Points ∼92%
Razer Phone 2017
7046 Points ∼75% -19%
Asus ROG Phone
9430 Points ∼100% +8%
Xiaomi Black Shark
8309 Points ∼88% -5%
Sony Xperia XZ3
Points ∼0% -100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (8326 - 9868, n=22)
8018 Points ∼85% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (3146 - 9868, n=255)
4555 Points ∼48% -48%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
10006 Points ∼87%
Razer Phone 2017
7968 Points ∼69% -20%
Asus ROG Phone
9707 Points ∼85% -3%
Sony Xperia XZ3
11474 Points ∼100% +15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7998 - 13211, n=20)
10123 Points ∼88% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (6412 - 13531, n=423)
4958 Points ∼43% -50%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
3540 Points ∼94%
Razer Phone 2017
3148 Points ∼84% -11%
Asus ROG Phone
3040 Points ∼81% -14%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
2723 Points ∼72% -23%
Xiaomi Black Shark
3577 Points ∼95% +1%
Sony Xperia XZ3
3764 Points ∼100% +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2223 - 3764, n=22)
3110 Points ∼83% -12%
Average of class Smartphone (2293 - 4439, n=277)
1709 Points ∼45% -52%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
5825 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
4490 Points ∼77% -23%
Asus ROG Phone
5673 Points ∼97% -3%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
4828 Points ∼83% -17%
Xiaomi Black Shark
5770 Points ∼99% -1%
Sony Xperia XZ3
5810 Points ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4209 - 8206, n=22)
5494 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (869 - 8206, n=277)
1465 Points ∼25% -75%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
5094 Points ∼98%
Razer Phone 2017
4101 Points ∼79% -19%
Asus ROG Phone
4757 Points ∼92% -7%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
4121 Points ∼79% -19%
Xiaomi Black Shark
5078 Points ∼98% 0%
Sony Xperia XZ3
5184 Points ∼100% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3512 - 5189, n=22)
4646 Points ∼90% -9%
Average of class Smartphone (1010 - 5189, n=280)
1360 Points ∼26% -73%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
3532 Points ∼94%
Razer Phone 2017
3189 Points ∼85% -10%
Asus ROG Phone
3763 Points ∼100% +7%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
2961 Points ∼79% -16%
Xiaomi Black Shark
3570 Points ∼95% +1%
Sony Xperia XZ3
3672 Points ∼98% +4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2110 - 3763, n=21)
3081 Points ∼82% -13%
Average of class Smartphone (375 - 4493, n=292)
1689 Points ∼45% -52%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
8389 Points ∼81%
Razer Phone 2017
6475 Points ∼62% -23%
Asus ROG Phone
8345 Points ∼80% -1%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
10374 Points ∼100% +24%
Xiaomi Black Shark
8451 Points ∼81% +1%
Sony Xperia XZ3
8369 Points ∼81% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5228 - 8451, n=21)
7720 Points ∼74% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (131 - 14951, n=292)
2068 Points ∼20% -75%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
6425 Points ∼96%
Razer Phone 2017
5269 Points ∼79% -18%
Asus ROG Phone
6568 Points ∼99% +2%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
6667 Points ∼100% +4%
Xiaomi Black Shark
6482 Points ∼97% +1%
Sony Xperia XZ3
6517 Points ∼98% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4054 - 6568, n=21)
5771 Points ∼87% -10%
Average of class Smartphone (159 - 7856, n=293)
1734 Points ∼26% -73%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
3557 Points ∼96%
Razer Phone 2017
3157 Points ∼85% -11%
Asus ROG Phone
3637 Points ∼98% +2%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
3027 Points ∼82% -15%
Xiaomi Black Shark
3408 Points ∼92% -4%
Sony Xperia XZ3
3703 Points ∼100% +4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2118 - 3703, n=21)
3268 Points ∼88% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (2281 - 4216, n=352)
1642 Points ∼44% -54%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
5113 Points ∼98%
Razer Phone 2017
4049 Points ∼78% -21%
Asus ROG Phone
5174 Points ∼99% +1%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
3726 Points ∼71% -27%
Xiaomi Black Shark
5220 Points ∼100% +2%
Sony Xperia XZ3
5092 Points ∼98% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3488 - 5241, n=21)
4944 Points ∼95% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (815 - 5241, n=352)
1186 Points ∼23% -77%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
4660 Points ∼99%
Razer Phone 2017
3810 Points ∼81% -18%
Asus ROG Phone
4730 Points ∼100% +2%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
3544 Points ∼75% -24%
Xiaomi Black Shark
4668 Points ∼99% 0%
Sony Xperia XZ3
4700 Points ∼99% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3197 - 4734, n=21)
4424 Points ∼94% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (951 - 4734, n=360)
1134 Points ∼24% -76%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
3587 Points ∼98%
Razer Phone 2017
3092 Points ∼84% -14%
Asus ROG Phone
3668 Points ∼100% +2%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
2713 Points ∼74% -24%
Xiaomi Black Shark
3443 Points ∼94% -4%
Sony Xperia XZ3
3603 Points ∼98% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2159 - 3668, n=21)
3129 Points ∼85% -13%
Average of class Smartphone (532 - 4215, n=384)
1540 Points ∼42% -57%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
8006 Points ∼96%
Razer Phone 2017
6127 Points ∼74% -23%
Asus ROG Phone
8243 Points ∼99% +3%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
7055 Points ∼85% -12%
Xiaomi Black Shark
8312 Points ∼100% +4%
Sony Xperia XZ3
8014 Points ∼96% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5637 - 8312, n=21)
7818 Points ∼94% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (46 - 8312, n=384)
1632 Points ∼20% -80%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
6285 Points ∼97%
Razer Phone 2017
5030 Points ∼78% -20%
Asus ROG Phone
6454 Points ∼100% +3%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
5205 Points ∼81% -17%
Xiaomi Black Shark
6324 Points ∼98% +1%
Sony Xperia XZ3
6300 Points ∼98% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4529 - 6454, n=21)
5843 Points ∼91% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (58 - 6454, n=392)
1387 Points ∼21% -78%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
35578 Points ∼95%
Razer Phone 2017
21521 Points ∼57% -40%
Asus ROG Phone
37475 Points ∼100% +5%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
27717 Points ∼74% -22%
Xiaomi Black Shark
31384 Points ∼84% -12%
Sony Xperia XZ3
36794 Points ∼98% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (15614 - 37475, n=21)
33400 Points ∼89% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (3958 - 37475, n=539)
12880 Points ∼34% -64%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
80333 Points ∼50%
Razer Phone 2017
58360 Points ∼37% -27%
Asus ROG Phone
80283 Points ∼50% 0%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
159735 Points ∼100% +99%
Xiaomi Black Shark
82423 Points ∼52% +3%
Sony Xperia XZ3
83927 Points ∼53% +4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (53794 - 84998, n=21)
80111 Points ∼50% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (2465 - 162695, n=539)
17994 Points ∼11% -78%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
62783 Points ∼81%
Razer Phone 2017
42278 Points ∼54% -33%
Asus ROG Phone
64029 Points ∼83% +2%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
77599 Points ∼100% +24%
Xiaomi Black Shark
60543 Points ∼78% -4%
Sony Xperia XZ3
65330 Points ∼84% +4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (34855 - 65330, n=21)
60990 Points ∼79% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (2915 - 77599, n=540)
15114 Points ∼19% -76%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
152 fps ∼67%
Razer Phone 2017
117 fps ∼52% -23%
Asus ROG Phone
150 fps ∼66% -1%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
226 fps ∼100% +49%
Xiaomi Black Shark
151 fps ∼67% -1%
Sony Xperia XZ3
152 fps ∼67% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (98 - 152, n=22)
144 fps ∼64% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 251, n=564)
31.4 fps ∼14% -79%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
89 fps ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
79 fps ∼89% -11%
Asus ROG Phone
89 fps ∼100% 0%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
60 fps ∼67% -33%
Xiaomi Black Shark
60 fps ∼67% -33%
Sony Xperia XZ3
60 fps ∼67% -33%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (58 - 89, n=21)
62.7 fps ∼70% -30%
Average of class Smartphone (6.9 - 120, n=567)
25 fps ∼28% -72%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
83 fps ∼78%
Razer Phone 2017
43 fps ∼40% -48%
Asus ROG Phone
83 fps ∼78% 0%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
107 fps ∼100% +29%
Xiaomi Black Shark
82 fps ∼77% -1%
Sony Xperia XZ3
83 fps ∼78% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (54 - 83, n=21)
73 fps ∼68% -12%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 132, n=486)
16.8 fps ∼16% -80%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
56 fps ∼75%
Razer Phone 2017
40 fps ∼53% -29%
Asus ROG Phone
75 fps ∼100% +34%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
59 fps ∼79% +5%
Xiaomi Black Shark
59 fps ∼79% +5%
Sony Xperia XZ3
50 fps ∼67% -11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (35 - 75, n=21)
55 fps ∼73% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 115, n=489)
16 fps ∼21% -71%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
61 fps ∼88%
Razer Phone 2017
21 fps ∼30% -66%
Asus ROG Phone
60 fps ∼87% -2%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
69.3 fps ∼100% +14%
Xiaomi Black Shark
60 fps ∼87% -2%
Sony Xperia XZ3
57 fps ∼82% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (32 - 61, n=22)
54.4 fps ∼78% -11%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 88, n=349)
14.3 fps ∼21% -77%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
37 fps ∼63%
Razer Phone 2017
22 fps ∼37% -41%
Asus ROG Phone
54 fps ∼92% +46%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
58.9 fps ∼100% +59%
Xiaomi Black Shark
53 fps ∼90% +43%
Sony Xperia XZ3
31 fps ∼53% -16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (25 - 59, n=21)
46.5 fps ∼79% +26%
Average of class Smartphone (9.8 - 110, n=352)
13.9 fps ∼24% -62%
GFXBench
High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
15 fps ∼47%
Asus ROG Phone
21 fps ∼65% +40%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
32.1 fps ∼100% +114%
Sony Xperia XZ3
14 fps ∼44% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (13 - 25, n=10)
19.8 fps ∼62% +32%
Average of class Smartphone (3.6 - 59, n=62)
10.2 fps ∼32% -32%
2560x1440 High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
14 fps ∼86%
Asus ROG Phone
14 fps ∼86% 0%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
16.3 fps ∼100% +16%
Sony Xperia XZ3
14 fps ∼86% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (11 - 31, n=10)
15.4 fps ∼94% +10%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 31, n=62)
6.49 fps ∼40% -54%
Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
23 fps ∼49%
Asus ROG Phone
34 fps ∼72% +48%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
47 fps ∼100% +104%
Sony Xperia XZ3
21 fps ∼45% -9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (20 - 40, n=10)
28.5 fps ∼61% +24%
Average of class Smartphone (5.7 - 59, n=62)
14.4 fps ∼31% -37%
1920x1080 Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Asus ROG Phone
37 fps ∼100%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
36.8 fps ∼99%
Sony Xperia XZ3
37 fps ∼100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (29 - 38, n=9)
35 fps ∼95%
Average of class Smartphone (6 - 63, n=61)
15.7 fps ∼42%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
35 fps ∼88%
Razer Phone 2017
25 fps ∼63% -29%
Asus ROG Phone
35 fps ∼88% 0%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
40 fps ∼100% +14%
Xiaomi Black Shark
35 fps ∼88% 0%
Sony Xperia XZ3
35 fps ∼88% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (25 - 35, n=21)
34 fps ∼85% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (6.3 - 54, n=280)
9.86 fps ∼25% -72%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
22 fps ∼71%
Razer Phone 2017
15 fps ∼48% -32%
Asus ROG Phone
31 fps ∼100% +41%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
31 fps ∼100% +41%
Xiaomi Black Shark
31 fps ∼100% +41%
Sony Xperia XZ3
19 fps ∼61% -14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (17 - 37, n=21)
28.3 fps ∼91% +29%
Average of class Smartphone (6 - 58, n=283)
8.89 fps ∼29% -60%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
285952 Points ∼94%
Razer Phone 2017
208972 Points ∼69% -27%
Asus ROG Phone
299878 Points ∼99% +5%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
302955 Points ∼100% +6%
Xiaomi Black Shark
290397 Points ∼96% +2%
Sony Xperia XZ3
292268 Points ∼96% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (246366 - 299878, n=22)
275958 Points ∼91% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (17073 - 348178, n=170)
118332 Points ∼39% -59%
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
232418 Points ∼96%
Asus ROG Phone
242953 Points ∼100% +5%
Xiaomi Black Shark
230642 Points ∼95% -1%
Sony Xperia XZ3
226853 Points ∼93% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (162183 - 242953, n=18)
223967 Points ∼92% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (23275 - 254229, n=387)
75990 Points ∼31% -67%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
1226 Points ∼71%
Razer Phone 2017
1225 Points ∼71% 0%
Asus ROG Phone
1336 Points ∼77% +9%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
1731 Points ∼100% +41%
Xiaomi Black Shark
1243 Points ∼72% +1%
Sony Xperia XZ3
1390 Points ∼80% +13%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (1009 - 1613, n=20)
1348 Points ∼78% +10%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1731, n=499)
698 Points ∼40% -43%
Graphics (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
8001 Points ∼51%
Razer Phone 2017
6273 Points ∼40% -22%
Asus ROG Phone
7957 Points ∼51% -1%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
15659 Points ∼100% +96%
Xiaomi Black Shark
5846 Points ∼37% -27%
Sony Xperia XZ3
7989 Points ∼51% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5846 - 8001, n=20)
7816 Points ∼50% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 15969, n=499)
1737 Points ∼11% -78%
Memory (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
3906 Points ∼74%
Razer Phone 2017
4085 Points ∼77% +5%
Asus ROG Phone
5296 Points ∼100% +36%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
1815 Points ∼34% -54%
Xiaomi Black Shark
2871 Points ∼54% -26%
Sony Xperia XZ3
2317 Points ∼44% -41%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2193 - 5296, n=20)
3594 Points ∼68% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 6283, n=499)
1244 Points ∼23% -68%
System (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
8120 Points ∼70%
Razer Phone 2017
5660 Points ∼48% -30%
Asus ROG Phone
8613 Points ∼74% +6%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
11675 Points ∼100% +44%
Xiaomi Black Shark
7105 Points ∼61% -12%
Sony Xperia XZ3
8135 Points ∼70% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4417 - 8613, n=20)
7657 Points ∼66% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 12202, n=499)
2512 Points ∼22% -69%
Overall (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2
4200 Points ∼86%
Razer Phone 2017
3651 Points ∼75% -13%
Asus ROG Phone
4693 Points ∼96% +12%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
4895 Points ∼100% +17%
Xiaomi Black Shark
3489 Points ∼71% -17%
Sony Xperia XZ3
3804 Points ∼78% -9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3291 - 4693, n=20)
4099 Points ∼84% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (150 - 6097, n=503)
1255 Points ∼26% -70%

Legend

 
Razer Phone 2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Razer Phone 2017 Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Asus ROG Phone Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 512 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, Apple A12 Bionic GPU, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
Xiaomi Black Shark Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Sony Xperia XZ3 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
Apple iPhone Xs Max (Safari 12)
273.01 Points ∼100% +207%
Asus ROG Phone (Chrome 70)
90.938 Points ∼33% +2%
Razer Phone 2 (Chrome 68)
88.869 Points ∼33%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (22.5 - 90.9, n=22)
76.9 Points ∼28% -13%
Razer Phone 2017 (Chrome 65)
63.3 Points ∼23% -29%
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 273, n=422)
36.7 Points ∼13% -59%
Xiaomi Black Shark
Points ∼0% -100%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Apple iPhone Xs Max (Safari 12)
43114 Points ∼100% +153%
Asus ROG Phone (Chrome 70)
18275 Points ∼42% +7%
Razer Phone 2 (Chrome 68)
17067 Points ∼40%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3991 - 18275, n=22)
15431 Points ∼36% -10%
Xiaomi Black Shark (Firefox 61)
13663 Points ∼32% -20%
Razer Phone 2017 (Chrome 65)
12600 Points ∼29% -26%
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 43280, n=557)
5556 Points ∼13% -67%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (603 - 59466, n=578)
11474 ms * ∼100% -403%
Razer Phone 2017 (Chrome 65)
3476 ms * ∼30% -52%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2154 - 11204, n=22)
2874 ms * ∼25% -26%
Xiaomi Black Shark (Firefox 61)
2287 ms * ∼20% -0%
Razer Phone 2 (Chrome 68)
2282.6 ms * ∼20%
Asus ROG Phone (Chrome 70)
2154 ms * ∼19% +6%
Apple iPhone Xs Max (Safari 12)
603.1 ms * ∼5% +74%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Apple iPhone Xs Max (Safari 12)
155 Points ∼100% +61%
Asus ROG Phone (Chrome 70)
103 Points ∼66% +7%
Razer Phone 2 (Chrome 68)
96 Points ∼62%
Xiaomi Black Shark (Firefox 61)
90 Points ∼58% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (19 - 103, n=15)
84.5 Points ∼55% -12%
Average of class Smartphone (25 - 161, n=63)
63.6 Points ∼41% -34%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
Apple iPhone Xs Max (Safari 12)
347 Points ∼100% +32%
Asus ROG Phone (Chrome 70)
266 Points ∼77% +1%
Razer Phone 2 (Chrome 68)
263 Points ∼76%
Xiaomi Black Shark (Firefox 61)
246 Points ∼71% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (260 - 291, n=21)
233 Points ∼67% -11%
Average of class Smartphone (91 - 362, n=284)
111 Points ∼32% -58%

* ... smaller is better

Razer Phone 2Razer Phone 2017Sony Xperia XZ3Xiaomi Black SharkAverage 64 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-8%
-19%
95%
13%
-47%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
62.2 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
52.5
-16%
30.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-51%
50.2 (17.1 - 71.9, n=25)
-19%
45.5 (3.4 - 87.1, n=317)
-27%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
86.6 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
79.4
-8%
34.2 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-61%
66.4 (18 - 86.6, n=25)
-23%
63.7 (8.2 - 96.5, n=317)
-26%
Random Write 4KB
23.99
14.3
-40%
22.22
-7%
114.1
376%
50.5 (8.77 - 156, n=34)
111%
16.1 (0.14 - 164, n=607)
-33%
Random Read 4KB
124.31
142.5
15%
135.67
9%
127.2
2%
134 (78.2 - 173, n=34)
8%
38.3 (1.59 - 173, n=607)
-69%
Sequential Write 256KB
194.81
202.5
4%
196.14
1%
199.6
2%
193 (133 - 229, n=34)
-1%
79.9 (2.99 - 246, n=607)
-59%
Sequential Read 256KB
733.22
732.3
0%
680.98
-7%
741.5
1%
727 (529 - 895, n=34)
-1%
230 (12.1 - 895, n=607)
-69%
Battle Bay
 ConfiguraçõesValor
 half resolution60 fps
 full resolution109 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Real Racing 3
 ConfiguraçõesValor
 high101 fps
 low60 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Carga Máxima
 39.7 °C39.4 °C39.8 °C 
 39.4 °C39.4 °C40.7 °C 
 38.7 °C38.9 °C39.6 °C 
Máximo: 40.7 °C
Médio: 39.5 °C
37.6 °C38.8 °C40.8 °C
38.3 °C38.4 °C38.9 °C
38.3 °C38.6 °C38 °C
Máximo: 40.8 °C
Médio: 38.6 °C
alimentação elétrica  42.2 °C | Temperatura do quarto 21.9 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 39.5 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 33.2 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 40.7 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 35.7 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 40.8 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 34.2 °C / 94 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.8 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 33.2 °C / 92 F.
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2030.331.52538.130.83128.537.94031.434.15036.634.26324.6288024.126.510020.524.81251925.816016.936.120019.150.525016.652.431513.955.44001561.350014.663.163012.364.280011.865.1100011.866.8125011.967160011.465200011.265.6250011.565315011.364.5400010.963.8500010.561.4630010.764.9800010.667.61000010.567.31250010.663.51600010.654.2SPL60.264.357.22477.1N14.116.810.40.541.3median 11.8median 63.8Delta2.2729.525.929.526.427.726.426.526.526.526.628.326.625.525.225.523.922.723.926.523.626.533.623.333.640.230.540.245.821.145.852.420.652.455.322.955.357.921.157.960.921.560.964.822.364.869.117.569.171.520.171.569.719.969.77018.27069.51669.570.715.770.771.614.871.669.614.569.666.914.266.968146867.813.867.868.913.968.966.51466.562.71462.758.613.858.681.229.381.251.51.251.5median 66.9median 17.5median 66.97.13.57.140.441.73634.540.928.533.230.441.14224.734.524.624.622.930.22038.717.545.718.849.818.951.11749.915.655.918.955.614.653.312.856.512.759.81264.31166.71168.91169.410.768.210.962.910.961.61162.711641161.911.158.111.152.862.324.877.215.60.637median 12median 58.135.9hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseRazer Phone 2Razer Phone 2017Apple iPhone Xs Max
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Razer Phone 2 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (77.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 1.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.8% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (14.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 1% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 14% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 82% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Razer Phone 2017 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 19.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (14.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 1% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 15% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 81% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Apple iPhone Xs Max audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (77.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 13.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 2% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 97% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 21% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 75% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Consumo de energia
desligadodarklight 0 / 0.2 Watt
Ociosodarkmidlight 0.6 / 1.5 / 2.6 Watt
Carga midlight 7.2 / 12.3 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Razer Phone 2
4000 mAh
Razer Phone 2017
4000 mAh
Asus ROG Phone
4000 mAh
Apple iPhone Xs Max
3174 mAh
Xiaomi Black Shark
4000 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-2%
21%
11%
6%
6%
12%
Idle Minimum *
0.6
0.83
-38%
0.6
-0%
1
-67%
0.8
-33%
0.802 (0.42 - 1.8, n=19)
-34%
0.881 (0.2 - 3.4, n=635)
-47%
Idle Average *
1.5
2.11
-41%
1.4
7%
1.4
7%
1.5
-0%
1.722 (0.67 - 2.9, n=19)
-15%
1.721 (0.6 - 6.2, n=634)
-15%
Idle Maximum *
2.6
2.24
14%
1.7
35%
1.7
35%
2.3
12%
2.1 (0.87 - 3.5, n=19)
19%
1.998 (0.74 - 6.6, n=635)
23%
Load Average *
7.2
4.94
31%
3.8
47%
4.6
36%
4.8
33%
4.79 (3.64 - 7.2, n=19)
33%
4.03 (0.8 - 10.8, n=629)
44%
Load Maximum *
12.3
9.08
26%
10.6
14%
6.7
46%
10.1
18%
9.2 (6.2 - 12.3, n=19)
25%
5.75 (1.2 - 14.2, n=629)
53%

* ... smaller is better

Tempo de Execução da Bateria
Ocioso (sem WLAN, min brilho)
27h 10min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
8h 51min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
12h 22min
Carga (máximo brilho)
3h 26min
Razer Phone 2
4000 mAh
Razer Phone 2017
4000 mAh
Asus ROG Phone
4000 mAh
Apple iPhone Xs Max
3174 mAh
Xiaomi Black Shark
4000 mAh
Battery Runtime
44%
-5%
9%
17%
Reader / Idle
1630
1110
-32%
1305
-20%
1753
8%
H.264
742
800
8%
801
8%
747
1%
WiFi v1.3
531
762
44%
533
0%
742
40%
711
34%
Load
206
216
5%
223
8%
253
23%

Pro

+ Tela de 120 Hz
+ SoC poderoso com resfriamento decente
+ 8 GB de RAM
+ Armazenamento expansível
+ Logotipo RGB exclusivo
+ Dual SIM
+ DAC de alta qualidade incluído
+ Câmera com OIS
+ Alto-falantes estéreo
+ Carregamento sem fio
+ QuickCharge

Contra

- Pesado
- Armazenamento interno pequeno
- Marcos amplos acima e abaixo da tela
- Duração de bateria pobre
In review: Razer Phone 2 (Phone 2)
In review: Razer Phone 2 (Phone 2)

Se você está procurando algo especial, o Razer Phone 2 será perfeito para você, e não apenas por causa do logotipo. O Asus ROG Phone oferece algo similar, porém, com uma tela de 90 Hz. Assim, a tela de 120 Hz é exclusiva do telefone da Razer - um concorrente exótico no mercado de smartphones que depende de desenvolvedores de jogos para suportar esse recurso exclusivo. E eles suportam - o número de jogos com suporte para 120 Hz está crescendo rapidamente. Talvez rápido o suficiente para transformar o concorrente exótico em um pioneiro de smartphone para jogos que todo jogador móvel vai desejar.

Snapdragon 845 da Qualcomm e 8 GB de RAM são rápidos e poderosos, mas não são exclusivos do Razer Phone 2, nem são significativamente mais rápidos e melhores do que os próprios chips de alto desempenho da Samsung e da Huawei. Notavelmente, esses podem ser ainda mais caros do que os $799 que a Razer está pedindo. Sua única fraqueza real é a falta de estamina - se a duração da bateria é importante para você, você pode querer dar uma olhada mais de perto na concorrência.

No lado mais barato do espectro está o Xiaomi Black Shark. Um smartphone que se saiu quase tão bem quanto o Razer Phone 2 em nossos testes, mas custa apenas cerca de metade. Se você insistir em um Razer, você pode querer considerar o modelo do ano passado também, embora atualmente somente está $100 mais barato. Ele não tem o sofisticado sistema de resfriamento, o carregamento sem fio, a certificação IP67 e o logotipo Chroma RGB.

Em alguns países, os telefones da Razer já estão disponíveis como ofertas subsidiadas pelo provedor de serviços de celular. Aconselhamos que primeiro dê uma olhada no telefone em pessoa e se certifique de que a sua forma quadrada se adapte às suas mãos e orelhas. E mesmo que não, o seu desempenho esmagador praticamente se vende.

Razer Phone 2 - 11/28/2018 v6
Inge Schwabe

Acabamento
91%
Teclado
89 / 75 → 100%
Mouse
100%
Conectividade
53 / 60 → 88%
Peso
88%
Bateria
92%
Pantalha
88%
Desempenho do jogos
65 / 63 → 100%
Desempenho da aplicação
76 / 70 → 100%
Temperatura
89%
Ruído
100%
Audio
78 / 91 → 86%
Camera
82%
Médio
84%
90%
Smartphone - Médio equilibrado

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Análises e revisões de portáteis e celulares > Análises > Análises > Breve Análise do Smartphone Razer Phone 2
Inge Schwabe, 2018-12- 3 (Update: 2018-12- 5)