Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarBreve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy A41: Acessível apesar de sua tela Super AMOLED
Comparison Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 78.8 % | 06/2020 | Samsung Galaxy A41 Helio P65, Mali-G52 MP2 | 152 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.10" | 2400x1080 | |
| 80.2 % | 05/2019 | Google Pixel 3a SD 670, Adreno 616 | 147 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 5.60" | 2220x1080 | |
| 79 % | 02/2020 | Huawei P30 Lite New Edition Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4 | 159 g | 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.15" | 2312x1080 | |
| 80.1 % | 01/2020 | Oppo Reno3 Helio P90, PowerVR GM9446 | 170 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.40" | 2400x1080 | |
| 79.1 % | 05/2019 | Samsung Galaxy A40 Exynos 7904, Mali-G71 MP2 | 140 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 5.90" | 2340x1080 | |
| 79.8 % | 01/2020 | Samsung Galaxy A51 Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3 | 172 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
| 85.2 % | 05/2020 | Apple iPhone SE 2020 A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU | 148 g | 128 GB NVMe | 4.70" | 1334x750 |
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.
Tageslicht-Szene 1Tageslicht-Szene 25-facher ZoomUltraweitwinkelLowlight-Umgebung
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 92 %
iluminação com acumulador: 554 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 1.6 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
98.4% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.11
| Samsung Galaxy A41 Super AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.10 | Google Pixel 3a P-OLED, 2220x1080, 5.60 | Huawei P30 Lite New Edition IPS, 2312x1080, 6.15 | Oppo Reno3 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.40 | Samsung Galaxy A40 Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 5.90 | Samsung Galaxy A51 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.50 | Apple iPhone SE 2020 IPS, 1334x750, 4.70 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -45% | -68% | -52% | -92% | -11% | 26% | |
| Brightness middle | 554 | 403 -27% | 507 -8% | 595 7% | 358 -35% | 589 6% | 688 24% |
| Brightness | 559 | 411 -26% | 481 -14% | 598 7% | 370 -34% | 589 5% | 659 18% |
| Brightness Distribution | 92 | 96 4% | 88 -4% | 90 -2% | 94 2% | 94 2% | 92 0% |
| Black Level * | 0.38 | 0.28 | |||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 2 | 5.1 -155% | 4.72 -136% | 4.96 -148% | 7.4 -270% | 2.22 -11% | 1 50% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 7.7 | 11 -43% | 7.84 -2% | 8.54 -11% | 12.5 -62% | 8.24 -7% | 2.2 71% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1.6 | 2 -25% | 5.5 -244% | 4.2 -163% | 4 -150% | 2.6 -63% | 1.7 -6% |
| Gamma | 2.11 104% | 2.22 99% | 2.158 102% | 2.307 95% | 2.084 106% | 2.111 104% | 2.25 98% |
| CCT | 6589 99% | 6589 99% | 7596 86% | 7072 92% | 7078 92% | 6508 100% | 6790 96% |
| Contrast | 1334 | 2457 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 245.1 Hz | ≤ 99 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 245.1 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 99 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 245.1 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 17900 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 1.2 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 9 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21.5 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 5.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2.8 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 2.8 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 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 13 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms). | ||
| AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 | |
| Huawei P30 Lite New Edition | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
| Apple iPhone SE 2020 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P65 () | |
| Basemark GPU 1.1 | |
| 1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A40 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P65 () | |
| Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A40 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P65 () | |
| 1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A40 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P65 () | |
| VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A40 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P65 () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2523 - 10071, n=12, last 2 years) | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone SE 2020 (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 351, n=173, last 2 years) | |
| Google Pixel 3a | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P65 (32.6 - 33.9, n=2) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 (Chrome 83.0.4103.101) | |
| Huawei P30 Lite New Edition (Chrome 79) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A40 (Chrome 73) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone SE 2020 (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 (Chrome 83.0.4103.101) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P65 (55.1 - 56, n=2) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
| Huawei P30 Lite New Edition (Chrome 79) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A40 (Chrome 73) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Apple iPhone SE 2020 (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (14.9 - 445, n=157, last 2 years) | |
| Huawei P30 Lite New Edition (Chrome 79) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P65 (27.8 - 28, n=2) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 (Chrome 83.0.4103.101) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A40 (Chrome 73) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Apple iPhone SE 2020 (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (39 - 304, n=122, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A40 (Chrome 73) | |
| Huawei P30 Lite New Edition (Chrome 79) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 (Chrome 83.0.4103.101) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P65 (51 - 52, n=2) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone SE 2020 (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 89112, n=211, last 2 years) | |
| Google Pixel 3a | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 (Chrome 83.0.4103.101) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P65 (10422 - 10499, n=2) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
| Huawei P30 Lite New Edition (Chrome 79) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A40 (Chrome 73) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Samsung Galaxy A40 (Chrome 73) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
| Huawei P30 Lite New Edition (Chrome 79) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P65 (3779 - 4369, n=2) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 (Chrome 83.0.4103.101) | |
| Google Pixel 3a | |
| Average of class Smartphone (388 - 9999, n=173, last 2 years) | |
| Apple iPhone SE 2020 (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy A41 | Google Pixel 3a | Huawei P30 Lite New Edition | Oppo Reno3 | Samsung Galaxy A40 | Samsung Galaxy A51 | Apple iPhone SE 2020 | Average 64 GB eMMC Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 9% | 86% | 9% | -25% | 18% | -22% | 324% | ||
| Sequential Read 256KB | 299.9 | 302 1% | 800 167% | 504 68% | 295 -2% | 496.1 65% | 273 ? -9% | 1505 ? 402% | |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 211.1 | 253.9 20% | 391.1 85% | 227.3 8% | 99.6 -53% | 184.9 -12% | 176.8 ? -16% | 1112 ? 427% | |
| Random Read 4KB | 84 | 63.6 -24% | 198.7 137% | 127.3 52% | 75.7 -10% | 110.8 32% | 59.1 ? -30% | 247 ? 194% | |
| Random Write 4KB | 72.5 | 99.9 38% | 171.6 137% | 143.9 98% | 13.2 -82% | 104.4 44% | 31.7 ? -56% | 271 ? 274% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 83 ? | 76.6 ? -8% | 13.4 ? -84% | 81.2 ? -2% | 73 ? -12% | 77.4 ? -7% | |||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 67 ? | 66.8 ? 0% | 8.4 ? -87% | 65.2 ? -3% | 60.1 ? -10% | 58.3 ? -13% |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 36.6 °C / 98 F, compared to the average of 35 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 56 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 37.7 °C / 100 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 25.9 °C / 79 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
Samsung Galaxy A41 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.9% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 9.7% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (27.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 65% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 28% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 80% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 16% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Samsung Galaxy A40 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 67.8% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 67.8% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 67.8% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (120.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 87% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 3% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 96% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Apple iPhone SE 2020 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 6.3% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.4% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 42% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 51% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 62% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 32% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0.02 / 0.3 Watt |
| Ocioso |  0.96 / 1.57 / 1.61 Watt |
| Carga |
2.93 / 4.97 Watt |
    
| |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 3500 mAh | Google Pixel 3a 3000 mAh | Huawei P30 Lite New Edition 3340 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A40 3100 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A51 4000 mAh | Apple iPhone SE 2020 1822 mAh | Average Mediatek Helio P65 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 12% | -36% | -48% | -25% | 18% | -13% | -28% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.96 | 0.61 36% | 0.95 1% | 0.8 17% | 0.9 6% | 0.44 54% | 0.98 ? -2% | 0.897 ? 7% |
| Idle Average * | 1.57 | 1.56 1% | 2.1 -34% | 1.4 11% | 1.7 -8% | 1.56 1% | 1.585 ? -1% | 1.452 ? 8% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.61 | 1.6 1% | 2.4 -49% | 2.3 -43% | 1.8 -12% | 1.63 -1% | 1.755 ? -9% | 1.629 ? -1% |
| Load Average * | 2.93 | 2.67 9% | 4.2 -43% | 7.4 -153% | 5.2 -77% | 2.32 21% | 3.97 ? -35% | 5.55 ? -89% |
| Load Maximum * | 4.97 | 4.33 13% | 7.7 -55% | 8.6 -73% | 6.6 -33% | 4.12 17% | 5.84 ? -18% | 8.31 ? -67% |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy A41 3500 mAh | Google Pixel 3a 3000 mAh | Huawei P30 Lite New Edition 3340 mAh | Oppo Reno3 4025 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A40 3100 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A51 4000 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -6% | -13% | 23% | -6% | -2% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1843 | 1359 -26% | 1689 -8% | 1689 -8% | ||
| H.264 | 998 | 802 -20% | 825 -17% | 846 -15% | ||
| WiFi v1.3 | 650 | 612 -6% | 719 11% | 802 23% | 643 -1% | 698 7% |
| Load | 268 | 223 -17% | 277 3% | 289 8% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto - A Samsung não mexe sua receita para o sucesso
Mais uma vez, a Samsung faz jus à reputação de sua série Galaxy A. Com o Galaxy A41, seu novo representante também ganha pontos com uma boa relação preço-desempenho. O dispositivo de gama média dificilmente mostra qualquer fraqueza real e, com sua tela Super AMOLED de 6,1 polegadas, a carcaça elegante e de alta qualidade, NFC e uma sólida bateria, representa um pacote bem-sucedido em geral.
Os pequenos compromissos da vida cotidiana que você precisa aceitar com um smartphone de gama média não pesam muito com o Galaxy A41, sendo pequenos aborrecimentos, em vez de desvantagens reais. Por exemplo, o espaço de armazenamento disponível poderia ter sido um pouco maior, a precisão das cores da câmera poderia ter sido melhor e a duração da bateria poderia ter sido ainda maior.
Uma atualização bem sucedida: O Galaxy A41 faz algumas coisas melhor que o seu antecessor Galaxy A40 e, ao mesmo tempo, convence com sua boa relação preço-desempenho.
Comparado com o Galaxy A51 de 6,5 polegadas, que também é significativamente mais caro com 369 Euros (~US$ 414), as diferenças no equipamento e no desempenho não são tão grandes. Portanto, para alguns usuários, o Galaxy A41 pode ser a melhor escolha.
Samsung Galaxy A41
-
08/31/2022 v7
Manuel Masiero
Pricecompare
