Breve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018)

Name: Breve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018)
Item: Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
Rating: 86
Author: Marcus Herbrich

Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, ✓ T. Hinum (traduzido por Ricardo Soto), 11/24/2018

Android Touchscreen Smartphone

All good things come in threes. De acordo com nossos testes, o destaque do Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018) não é sua câmera tripla. É outro elemento de hardware que bate todos os outros smartphones de gama média.

Test device courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de

Download your licensed rating image as PNG / SVG

Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 (Galaxy Serie)

Processador

Samsung Exynos 7885

Placa gráfica

ARM Mali-G71 MP2

Memória

4096 MB

Pantalha

6 polegadas 18.5:9, 2220 x 1080 pixel 411 PPI, Tela multitouch capacitiva, Super AMOLED, Brilhante: sim

Disco rígido

64 GB eMMC Flash, 64 GB

, 50 GB livre

Conexões

1 USB 2.0, Conexões Audio: Conector de áudio de 3,5 mm, Card Reader: Expansão de armazenamento: microSD (até 512 GB), 1 Leitor de Impressões Digitais, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensores: acelerômetro, giroscópio, sensor de proximidade, bússola, Miracast, VoLTE, WiFi-Calling, LED, OTG

Funcionamento em rede

802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM band: GSM 850 MHz, GSM 900 MHz, DCS 1800 MHz, PCS 1900 MHz; UMTS band: B1 (2100), B2 (1900), B5 (850), B8 (900); LTE band: B1 (2100), B3 (1800), B5 (850), B7 (2600), B8 (900), B20 (800), 4G TDD LTE B38 (2600), B40 (2300), B41 (2500), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS

Tamanho

altura x largura x profundidade (em mm): 7.5 x 159.8 x 76.8

Bateria

3300 mAh, Tempo de conversação 3G (de acordo com o fabricante): 19 h

Sistema Operativo

Android 8.0 Oreo

Camera

Primary Camera: 24 MPix Câmera principal de 24-MP com uma apertura de f/1.7, um sensor de 8-MP com um ângulo ultra amplo de 120 graus e f/2.4, bem como uma unidade de 5-MP com f/2.2; resolução de vídeo: Full HD (1920 x 1080 pixels) @30fps
Secondary Camera: 24 MPix

Características adicionais

Alto falantes: Alto-falante mono, Teclado: Teclado na tela, Fonte de alimentação modular, cabo USB, Samsung Experience UI, 24 Meses Garantia, SAR value head: 0.335 W/Kg SAR value body: 1.425 W/Kg , fanless

peso

168 g, Suprimento de energia: 61 g

Preço

350 Euro

Links

Samsung página inicial
Samsung Seção de notebook

Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

see all specifications

Size Comparison

Os Top 10

» Os Top 10 Portáteis Multimídia
» Os Top 10 Portáteis de Jogos
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Leves para Jogos
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Acessíveis de Escritório/Empresariais
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Premium de Escritório/Empresariais
» Os Top 10 dos Portáteis Workstation
» Os Top 10 Subportáteis
» Os Top 10 Ultrabooks
» Os Top 10 Conversíveis
» Os Top 10 Tablets
» Os Top 10 Smartphones
» A melhores Telas de Portáteis Analisadas Pela Notebookcheck
» Top 10 dos portáteis abaixo dos 500 Euros da Notebookcheck
» Top 10 dos Portáteis abaixo dos 300 Euros

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	675 (min: 630, max: 704) MBit/s ∼100% +142%
Sony Xperia XA2 Adreno 508, 630, 32 GB eMMC Flash	309 MBit/s ∼46% +11%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 Mali-G71 MP2, 7885, 32 GB eMMC Flash	280 MBit/s ∼41% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Mali-G71 MP2, 7885, 64 GB eMMC Flash	279 (min: 265, max: 284) MBit/s ∼41%
BQ Aquaris X2 Adreno 509, 636, 32 GB eMMC Flash	275 MBit/s ∼41% -1%
Nokia 7 Plus Adreno 512, 660, 64 GB eMMC Flash	247 MBit/s ∼37% -11%
Xiaomi Mi 6X Adreno 512, 660, 64 GB eMMC Flash	246 MBit/s ∼36% -12%
Average of class Smartphone (5.9 - 939, n=339)	214 MBit/s ∼32% -23%
Honor 8X Mali-G51 MP4, Kirin 710, 128 GB eMMC Flash	207 (min: 162, max: 243) MBit/s ∼31% -26%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	647 (min: 598, max: 665) MBit/s ∼100% +102%
Xiaomi Mi 6X Adreno 512, 660, 64 GB eMMC Flash	333 MBit/s ∼51% +4%
BQ Aquaris X2 Adreno 509, 636, 32 GB eMMC Flash	322 (min: 275) MBit/s ∼50% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Mali-G71 MP2, 7885, 64 GB eMMC Flash	320 (min: 164, max: 362) MBit/s ∼49%
Nokia 7 Plus Adreno 512, 660, 64 GB eMMC Flash	307 MBit/s ∼47% -4%
Sony Xperia XA2 Adreno 508, 630, 32 GB eMMC Flash	289 MBit/s ∼45% -10%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 Mali-G71 MP2, 7885, 32 GB eMMC Flash	269 MBit/s ∼42% -16%
Average of class Smartphone (9.4 - 703, n=339)	208 MBit/s ∼32% -35%
Honor 8X Mali-G51 MP4, Kirin 710, 128 GB eMMC Flash	182 (min: 136, max: 231) MBit/s ∼28% -43%

; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø278 (265-284)

; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø320 (164-362)

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 1 Scene 2 Scene 3

click to load images

Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018)

Huawei Mate 20 Pro

Apple iPhone XR

Canon EOS 70D

click to load images

Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018)

Huawei Mate 20 Pro

Apple iPhone XR

Canon EOS 70D

click to load images

Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018)

Huawei Mate 20 Pro

Apple iPhone XR

Canon EOS 70D


583 cd/m²	564 cd/m²	543 cd/m²
574 cd/m²	570 cd/m²	546 cd/m²
583 cd/m²	571 cd/m²	553 cd/m²

Distribuição do brilho

X-Rite i1Pro 2

Máximo: 583 cd/m² Médio: 565.2 cd/m² Minimum: 1.79 cd/m²
iluminação: 93 %
iluminação com acumulador: 570 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.5 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.2
ΔE Greyscale 1.2 | 0.64-98 Ø6.4
98.7% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.07

	Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Super AMOLED, 2220x1080, 6	Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 Super AMOLED, 2220x1080, 5.6	Nokia 7 Plus IPS, 2160x1080, 6	Xiaomi Mi 6X LCD IPS, 2160x1080, 5.99	Xiaomi Pocophone F1 IPS, 2246x1080, 6.18	Honor 8X LCD IPS, 2340x1080, 6.5	BQ Aquaris X2 IPS LCD, 2160x1080, 5.65	Sony Xperia XA2 IPS, 1920x1080, 5.2	Samsung Galaxy S8 Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 5.8
Screen		-84%	-101%	-173%	-91%	-191%	-124%	-170%	-48%
Brightness middle	570	541 -5%	458 -20%	459 -19%	489 -14%	484 -15%	631 11%	513 -10%	566 -1%
Brightness	565	538 -5%	463 -18%	441 -22%	486 -14%	469 -17%	622 10%	506 -10%	564 0%
Brightness Distribution	93	96 3%	92 -1%	91 -2%	93 0%	93 0%	96 3%	93 0%	94 1%
Black Level *			0.22	0.47	0.34	0.55	0.61	0.42
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *	1.5	5.8 -287%	4 -167%	5.8 -287%	3.8 -153%	7.3 -387%	5.5 -267%	5 -233%	2.7 -80%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *	3.6		7.4 -106%	10.7 -197%	7.1 -97%	11.1 -208%	8.5 -136%	11.4 -217%	5.4 -50%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *	1.2	2.7 -125%	4.7 -292%	7.3 -508%	4.4 -267%	7.4 -517%	5.6 -367%	7.8 -550%	3.1 -158%
Gamma	2.07 ^106%	2.07 ^106%	2.19 ^100%	2.28 ^96%	2.22 ^99%	2.16 ^102%	2.38 ^92%	2.2 ^100%	2.15 ^102%
CCT	6504 ^100%	6570 ^99%	7425 ^88%	7984 ^81%	7213 ^90%	8534 ^76%	7531 ^86%	7964 ^82%	6335 ^103%
Contrast			2082	977	1438	880	1034	1221
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)									81.57
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)									99.87

* ... smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

ℹ

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

240.4 Hz

≤ 99 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 240.4 Hz (Likely 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 240.4 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below.

In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9254 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Display Response Times

ℹ

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
4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 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 (25.6 ms).
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
4.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 2.8 ms rise
4.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 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 (40.9 ms).

Geekbench 4.3
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	4026 Points ∼28%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	3680 Points ∼26% -9%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	5486 Points ∼38% +36%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	14369 Points ∼100% +257%
Honor 8X	4083 Points ∼28% +1%
BQ Aquaris X2	4309 Points ∼30% +7%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (3680 - 4026, n=2)	3853 Points ∼27% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (1131 - 21070, n=224)	4536 Points ∼32% +13%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	4429 Points ∼48%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	4431 Points ∼48% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus	5867 Points ∼64% +32%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	5843 Points ∼64% +32%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	9182 Points ∼100% +107%
Honor 8X	5557 Points ∼61% +25%
BQ Aquaris X2	4974 Points ∼54% +12%
Sony Xperia XA2	4170 Points ∼45% -6%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (4429 - 4431, n=2)	4430 Points ∼48% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (1635 - 11598, n=275)	4366 Points ∼48% -1%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	1525 Points ∼62%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	1526 Points ∼62% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus	1646 Points ∼67% +8%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	1620 Points ∼66% +6%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	2468 Points ∼100% +62%
Honor 8X	1614 Points ∼65% +6%
BQ Aquaris X2	1323 Points ∼54% -13%
Sony Xperia XA2	865 Points ∼35% -43%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (1525 - 1526, n=2)	1526 Points ∼62% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (590 - 4824, n=276)	1267 Points ∼51% -17%

PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	5387 Points ∼66%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	5214 Points ∼64% -3%
Nokia 7 Plus	6077 Points ∼75% +13%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	5995 Points ∼74% +11%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	8101 Points ∼100% +50%
Honor 8X	7141 Points ∼88% +33%
BQ Aquaris X2	5706 Points ∼70% +6%
Sony Xperia XA2	5006 Points ∼62% -7%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (5214 - 5387, n=2)	5301 Points ∼65% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (2828 - 9868, n=285)	4681 Points ∼58% -13%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	5625 Points ∼58%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	5916 Points ∼61% +5%
Nokia 7 Plus	6825 Points ∼71% +21%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	6723 Points ∼70% +20%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	9664 Points ∼100% +72%
Honor 8X	8939 Points ∼92% +59%
BQ Aquaris X2	6437 Points ∼67% +14%
Sony Xperia XA2	5844 Points ∼60% +4%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (5625 - 5916, n=2)	5771 Points ∼60% +3%
Average of class Smartphone (3977 - 13531, n=453)	5108 Points ∼53% -9%

3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	1845 Points ∼66%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	2051 Points ∼74% +11%
Nokia 7 Plus	2789 Points ∼100% +51%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	2764 Points ∼99% +50%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	2257 Points ∼81% +22%
Honor 8X	2702 Points ∼97% +46%
BQ Aquaris X2	2396 Points ∼86% +30%
Sony Xperia XA2	1696 Points ∼61% -8%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (1845 - 2051, n=2)	1948 Points ∼70% +6%
Average of class Smartphone (585 - 4439, n=304)	1750 Points ∼63% -5%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	629 Points ∼14%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	577 Points ∼13% -8%
Nokia 7 Plus	1239 Points ∼28% +97%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	1244 Points ∼28% +98%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	4468 Points ∼100% +610%
Honor 8X	801 Points ∼18% +27%
BQ Aquaris X2	872 Points ∼20% +39%
Sony Xperia XA2	790 Points ∼18% +26%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (577 - 629, n=2)	603 Points ∼13% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (76 - 8206, n=304)	1471 Points ∼33% +134%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	737 Points ∼20%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	687 Points ∼19% -7%
Nokia 7 Plus	1441 Points ∼39% +96%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	1417 Points ∼39% +92%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	3669 Points ∼100% +398%
Honor 8X	950 Points ∼26% +29%
BQ Aquaris X2	1016 Points ∼28% +38%
Sony Xperia XA2	896 Points ∼24% +22%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (687 - 737, n=2)	712 Points ∼19% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (94 - 5200, n=307)	1374 Points ∼37% +86%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	1871 Points ∼66%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	2003 Points ∼71% +7%
Nokia 7 Plus	2768 Points ∼98% +48%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	2815 Points ∼99% +50%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	2832 Points ∼100% +51%
Honor 8X	2697 Points ∼95% +44%
BQ Aquaris X2	2359 Points ∼83% +26%
Sony Xperia XA2	1657 Points ∼59% -11%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (1871 - 2003, n=2)	1937 Points ∼68% +4%
Average of class Smartphone (375 - 4493, n=321)	1723 Points ∼61% -8%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	954 Points ∼14%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	971 Points ∼14% +2%
Nokia 7 Plus	1980 Points ∼29% +108%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	1981 Points ∼29% +108%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	6898 Points ∼100% +623%
Honor 8X	1316 Points ∼19% +38%
BQ Aquaris X2	1402 Points ∼20% +47%
Sony Xperia XA2	1305 Points ∼19% +37%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (954 - 971, n=2)	963 Points ∼14% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (131 - 14951, n=321)	2050 Points ∼30% +115%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	1071 Points ∼20%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	1097 Points ∼21% +2%
Nokia 7 Plus	2114 Points ∼40% +97%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	2121 Points ∼41% +98%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	5230 Points ∼100% +388%
Honor 8X	1485 Points ∼28% +39%
BQ Aquaris X2	1540 Points ∼29% +44%
Sony Xperia XA2	1370 Points ∼26% +28%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (1071 - 1097, n=2)	1084 Points ∼21% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (159 - 7856, n=322)	1735 Points ∼33% +62%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	1821 Points ∼66%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	1950 Points ∼71% +7%
Nokia 7 Plus	2749 Points ∼100% +51%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	2757 Points ∼100% +51%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	2528 Points ∼92% +39%
Honor 8X	2663 Points ∼97% +46%
BQ Aquaris X2	2353 Points ∼85% +29%
Sony Xperia XA2	1631 Points ∼59% -10%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (1821 - 1950, n=2)	1886 Points ∼68% +4%
Average of class Smartphone (503 - 4216, n=379)	1682 Points ∼61% -8%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	634 Points ∼13%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	618 Points ∼13% -3%
Nokia 7 Plus	1161 Points ∼24% +83%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	1164 Points ∼25% +84%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	4746 Points ∼100% +649%
Honor 8X	798 Points ∼17% +26%
BQ Aquaris X2	816 Points ∼17% +29%
Sony Xperia XA2	709 Points ∼15% +12%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (618 - 634, n=2)	626 Points ∼13% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (82 - 5246, n=380)	1199 Points ∼25% +89%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	741 Points ∼19%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	729 Points ∼18% -2%
Nokia 7 Plus	1332 Points ∼34% +80%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	1335 Points ∼34% +80%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	3972 Points ∼100% +436%
Honor 8X	945 Points ∼24% +28%
BQ Aquaris X2	955 Points ∼24% +29%
Sony Xperia XA2	811 Points ∼20% +9%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (729 - 741, n=2)	735 Points ∼19% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (103 - 4734, n=388)	1151 Points ∼29% +55%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	1829 Points ∼67%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	1946 Points ∼71% +6%
Nokia 7 Plus	2734 Points ∼100% +49%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	2680 Points ∼98% +47%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	2720 Points ∼99% +49%
Honor 8X	2645 Points ∼97% +45%
BQ Aquaris X2	2338 Points ∼86% +28%
Sony Xperia XA2	1737 Points ∼64% -5%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (1829 - 1946, n=2)	1888 Points ∼69% +3%
Average of class Smartphone (512 - 4215, n=413)	1580 Points ∼58% -14%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	845 Points ∼10%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	879 Points ∼11% +4%
Nokia 7 Plus	1895 Points ∼23% +124%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	1891 Points ∼23% +124%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	8261 Points ∼100% +878%
Honor 8X	1280 Points ∼15% +51%
BQ Aquaris X2	1337 Points ∼16% +58%
Sony Xperia XA2	1251 Points ∼15% +48%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (845 - 879, n=2)	862 Points ∼10% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (46 - 8312, n=413)	1641 Points ∼20% +94%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	960 Points ∼17%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	1001 Points ∼18% +4%
Nokia 7 Plus	2035 Points ∼36% +112%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	2023 Points ∼36% +111%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	5687 Points ∼100% +492%
Honor 8X	1445 Points ∼25% +51%
BQ Aquaris X2	1478 Points ∼26% +54%
Sony Xperia XA2	1334 Points ∼23% +39%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (960 - 1001, n=2)	981 Points ∼17% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (58 - 6454, n=421)	1406 Points ∼25% +46%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	13914 Points ∼40%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	13306 Points ∼38% -4%
Nokia 7 Plus	20085 Points ∼58% +44%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	21016 Points ∼60% +51%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	34928 Points ∼100% +151%
Honor 8X	17450 Points ∼50% +25%
BQ Aquaris X2	16747 Points ∼48% +20%
Sony Xperia XA2	13112 Points ∼38% -6%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (13306 - 13914, n=2)	13610 Points ∼39% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (3958 - 37475, n=569)	13098 Points ∼38% -6%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	15567 Points ∼19%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	15262 Points ∼19% -2%
Nokia 7 Plus	29333 Points ∼36% +88%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	28984 Points ∼35% +86%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	82125 Points ∼100% +428%
Honor 8X	21533 Points ∼26% +38%
BQ Aquaris X2	20806 Points ∼25% +34%
Sony Xperia XA2	18534 Points ∼23% +19%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (15262 - 15567, n=2)	15415 Points ∼19% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (1152 - 162695, n=569)	18353 Points ∼22% +18%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	15167 Points ∼24%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	14779 Points ∼23% -3%
Nokia 7 Plus	26610 Points ∼42% +75%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	26731 Points ∼42% +76%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	63159 Points ∼100% +316%
Honor 8X	20468 Points ∼32% +35%
BQ Aquaris X2	19743 Points ∼31% +30%
Sony Xperia XA2	16974 Points ∼27% +12%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (14779 - 15167, n=2)	14973 Points ∼24% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (2915 - 77599, n=570)	15461 Points ∼24% +2%

GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	34 fps ∼23%
Nokia 7 Plus	50 fps ∼33%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	50 fps ∼33%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	150 fps ∼100%
Honor 8X	39 fps ∼26%
BQ Aquaris X2	36 fps ∼24%
Sony Xperia XA2	30 fps ∼20%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885	34 fps ∼23%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 251, n=594)	32 fps ∼21%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	31 fps ∼52%
Nokia 7 Plus	48 fps ∼80%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	48 fps ∼80%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	60 fps ∼100%
Honor 8X	36 fps ∼60%
BQ Aquaris X2	34 fps ∼57%
Sony Xperia XA2	31 fps ∼52%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885	31 fps ∼52%
Average of class Smartphone (6.9 - 120, n=597)	25.5 fps ∼43%

GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	16 fps ∼23%
Nokia 7 Plus	23 fps ∼32%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	23 fps ∼32%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	71 fps ∼100%
Honor 8X	21 fps ∼30%
BQ Aquaris X2	16 fps ∼23%
Sony Xperia XA2	14 fps ∼20%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885	16 fps ∼23%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 132, n=516)	17.2 fps ∼24%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	15 fps ∼26%
Nokia 7 Plus	22 fps ∼38%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	21 fps ∼36%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	58 fps ∼100%
Honor 8X	19 fps ∼33%
BQ Aquaris X2	15 fps ∼26%
Sony Xperia XA2	15 fps ∼26%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885	15 fps ∼26%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 115, n=519)	16.4 fps ∼28%

GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	9.9 fps ∼28%
Nokia 7 Plus	14 fps ∼40%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	15 fps ∼43%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	35 fps ∼100%
Honor 8X	14 fps ∼40%
BQ Aquaris X2	10 fps ∼29%
Sony Xperia XA2	9.7 fps ∼28%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885	9.9 fps ∼28%
Average of class Smartphone (4.7 - 88, n=377)	14.6 fps ∼42%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	9.6 fps ∼18%
Nokia 7 Plus	15 fps ∼28%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	14 fps ∼26%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	54 fps ∼100%
Honor 8X	13 fps ∼24%
BQ Aquaris X2	9.8 fps ∼18%
Sony Xperia XA2	10 fps ∼19%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885	9.6 fps ∼18%
Average of class Smartphone (5 - 110, n=380)	14.2 fps ∼26%

GFXBench
High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 7 Plus	5.2 fps ∼24%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	22 fps ∼100%
Honor 8X	4.1 fps ∼19%
Average of class Smartphone (0.61 - 59, n=86)	9.34 fps ∼42%
2560x1440 High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 7 Plus	3.2 fps ∼23%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	14 fps ∼100%
Honor 8X	2.6 fps ∼19%
Average of class Smartphone (0.21 - 31, n=86)	6.18 fps ∼44%
Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 7 Plus	8.2 fps ∼26%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	31 fps ∼100%
Honor 8X	5.2 fps ∼17%
Average of class Smartphone (1.4 - 59, n=86)	13.7 fps ∼44%
1920x1080 Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 7 Plus	8.6 fps ∼27%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	32 fps ∼100%
Honor 8X	4.6 fps ∼14%
Average of class Smartphone (0.77 - 63, n=85)	14.8 fps ∼46%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	6 fps ∼17%
Nokia 7 Plus	8.3 fps ∼24%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	9 fps ∼26%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	35 fps ∼100%
Honor 8X	7.6 fps ∼22%
BQ Aquaris X2	6.3 fps ∼18%
Sony Xperia XA2	5.5 fps ∼16%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885	6 fps ∼17%
Average of class Smartphone (2.5 - 54, n=308)	9.92 fps ∼28%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	5.8 fps ∼18%
Nokia 7 Plus	9.1 fps ∼28%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	8.6 fps ∼26%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	33 fps ∼100%
Honor 8X	6.4 fps ∼19%
BQ Aquaris X2	6 fps ∼18%
Sony Xperia XA2	6 fps ∼18%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885	5.8 fps ∼18%
Average of class Smartphone (2.8 - 58, n=311)	8.99 fps ∼27%

AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	122826 Points ∼47%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	116746 Points ∼44% -5%
Nokia 7 Plus	141701 Points ∼54% +15%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	140714 Points ∼53% +15%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	263165 Points ∼100% +114%
Honor 8X	140188 Points ∼53% +14%
BQ Aquaris X2	116748 Points ∼44% -5%
Sony Xperia XA2	89228 Points ∼34% -27%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (116746 - 122826, n=2)	119786 Points ∼46% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (54871 - 348178, n=200)	120266 Points ∼46% -2%

AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	87728 Points ∼39%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	83284 Points ∼37% -5%
Nokia 7 Plus	117165 Points ∼52% +34%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	110680 Points ∼49% +26%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	227026 Points ∼100% +159%
Honor 8X	112870 Points ∼50% +29%
BQ Aquaris X2	96430 Points ∼42% +10%
Sony Xperia XA2	71552 Points ∼32% -18%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (83284 - 87728, n=2)	85506 Points ∼38% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (23275 - 254229, n=419)	78635 Points ∼35% -10%

BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	1090 Points ∼84%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	1195 Points ∼92% +10%
Nokia 7 Plus	1101 Points ∼85% +1%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	1108 Points ∼85% +2%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	1296 Points ∼100% +19%
Honor 8X	1207 Points ∼93% +11%
BQ Aquaris X2	1059 Points ∼82% -3%
Sony Xperia XA2	921 Points ∼71% -16%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (1090 - 1195, n=2)	1143 Points ∼88% +5%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1731, n=528)	706 Points ∼54% -35%
Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	1356 Points ∼17%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	1331 Points ∼17% -2%
Nokia 7 Plus	2298 Points ∼29% +69%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	2295 Points ∼29% +69%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	7945 Points ∼100% +486%
Honor 8X	1456 Points ∼18% +7%
BQ Aquaris X2	1597 Points ∼20% +18%
Sony Xperia XA2	1500 Points ∼19% +11%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (1331 - 1356, n=2)	1344 Points ∼17% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 15969, n=528)	1766 Points ∼22% +30%
Memory (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	2445 Points ∼56%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	2275 Points ∼52% -7%
Nokia 7 Plus	2503 Points ∼57% +2%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	2470 Points ∼57% +1%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	3239 Points ∼74% +32%
Honor 8X	4360 Points ∼100% +78%
BQ Aquaris X2	2016 Points ∼46% -18%
Sony Xperia XA2	1328 Points ∼30% -46%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (2275 - 2445, n=2)	2360 Points ∼54% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 6283, n=528)	1299 Points ∼30% -47%
System (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	4506 Points ∼69%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	4358 Points ∼67% -3%
Nokia 7 Plus	4976 Points ∼76% +10%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	4797 Points ∼74% +6%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	6506 Points ∼100% +44%
Honor 8X	5529 Points ∼85% +23%
BQ Aquaris X2	4434 Points ∼68% -2%
Sony Xperia XA2	3256 Points ∼50% -28%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (4358 - 4506, n=2)	4432 Points ∼68% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 12202, n=528)	2606 Points ∼40% -42%
Overall (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	2009 Points ∼52%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	1993 Points ∼52% -1%
Nokia 7 Plus	2369 Points ∼62% +18%
Xiaomi Mi 6X	2343 Points ∼61% +17%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	3838 Points ∼100% +91%
Honor 8X	2410 Points ∼63% +20%
BQ Aquaris X2	1972 Points ∼51% -2%
Sony Xperia XA2	1563 Points ∼41% -22%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (1993 - 2009, n=2)	2001 Points ∼52% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (150 - 6097, n=532)	1291 Points ∼34% -36%

Legend

Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Samsung Exynos 7885, ARM Mali-G71 MP2, 64 GB eMMC Flash

Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 Samsung Exynos 7885, ARM Mali-G71 MP2, 32 GB eMMC Flash

Nokia 7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Qualcomm Adreno 512, 64 GB eMMC Flash

Xiaomi Mi 6X Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Qualcomm Adreno 512, 64 GB eMMC Flash

Xiaomi Pocophone F1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

Honor 8X HiSilicon Kirin 710, ARM Mali-G51 MP4, 128 GB eMMC Flash

BQ Aquaris X2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Qualcomm Adreno 509, 32 GB eMMC Flash

Sony Xperia XA2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Qualcomm Adreno 508, 32 GB eMMC Flash

Average Samsung Exynos 7885

Average of class Smartphone

JetStream 1.1 | Octane V2 | Mozilla Kraken 1.1 | WebXPRT 3 | WebXPRT 2015

JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Chrome 68)	75.959 Points ∼100% +58%
Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60)	53.89 Points ∼71% +12%
Xiaomi Mi 6X (Chrome 67)	52.139 Points ∼69% +9%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 (Chrome 64.0.3282.137)	49.07 Points ∼65% +2%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (48 - 49.1, n=2)	48.5 Points ∼64% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 (Chrome 70)	47.986 Points ∼63%
Honor 8X (Chrome 70)	47.012 Points ∼62% -2%
BQ Aquaris X2 (Chrome 67)	44.245 Points ∼58% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 273, n=452)	37.3 Points ∼49% -22%
Sony Xperia XA2 (Chrome 65.0.3325.109)	27.368 Points ∼36% -43%

Octane V2 - Total Score
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Chrome 68)	14514 Points ∼100% +58%
Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60)	10945 Points ∼75% +19%
Xiaomi Mi 6X (Chrome 67)	9995 Points ∼69% +9%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 (Chrome 64.0.3282.137)	9350 Points ∼64% +2%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (9165 - 9350, n=2)	9258 Points ∼64% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 (Chrome 70)	9165 Points ∼63%
Honor 8X (Chrome 70)	9095 Points ∼63% -1%
BQ Aquaris X2 (Chrome 67)	9004 Points ∼62% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 43280, n=588)	5730 Points ∼39% -37%
Sony Xperia XA2 (Chrome 65.0.3325.109)	4771 Points ∼33% -48%

Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (603 - 59466, n=608)	11282 ms * ∼100% -174%
Sony Xperia XA2 (Chrome 65.0.3325.109)	10235.7 ms * ∼91% -148%
Xiaomi Mi 6X (Chrome 67)	4768.9 ms * ∼42% -16%
BQ Aquaris X2	4733 ms * ∼42% -15%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 (Chrome 64.0.3282.137)	4275.2 ms * ∼38% -4%
Honor 8X	4247.7 ms * ∼38% -3%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (4123 - 4275, n=2)	4199 ms * ∼37% -2%
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 (Chrome 70)	4122.8 ms * ∼37%
Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60)	3937.3 ms * ∼35% +4%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Chrome 68)	2713.6 ms * ∼24% +34%

WebXPRT 3 - ---
Average of class Smartphone (25 - 161, n=76)	64.4 Points ∼100% +13%
Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60)	63 Points ∼98% +11%
Xiaomi Mi 6X (Chrome 67)	61 Points ∼95% +7%
Honor 8X (Chrome 70)	58 Points ∼90% +2%
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 (Chrome 70)	57 Points ∼89%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885	57 Points ∼89% 0%
BQ Aquaris X2 (Chrome 67)	54 Points ∼84% -5%

WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Chrome 68)	223 Points ∼100% +33%
Xiaomi Mi 6X (Chrome 67)	173 Points ∼78% +3%
Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60)	168 Points ∼75% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 (Chrome 70)	168 Points ∼75%
BQ Aquaris X2 (Chrome 67)	164 Points ∼74% -2%
Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (156 - 168, n=2)	162 Points ∼73% -4%
Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 (Chrome 64.0.3282.137)	156 Points ∼70% -7%
Honor 8X (Chrome 70)	147 Points ∼66% -12%
Average of class Smartphone (77 - 362, n=298)	115 Points ∼52% -32%
Sony Xperia XA2 (Chrome 65.0.3325.109)	106 Points ∼48% -37%

* ... smaller is better

	Samsung Galaxy A7 2018	Samsung Galaxy A8 2018	Nokia 7 Plus	Xiaomi Mi 6X	Xiaomi Pocophone F1	Honor 8X	BQ Aquaris X2	Sony Xperia XA2	Average 64 GB eMMC Flash	Average of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5		-2%	15%	5%	39%	51%	3%	-6%	7%	-20%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard	64.39 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)	62.29 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) -3%	62.31 -3%		65.58 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 2%	68.12 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 6%	62.28 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) -3%	64.75 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 1%	55.4 (14.1 - 74.7, n=82) -14%	47 (3.4 - 87.1, n=348) -27%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard	78.15 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)	77.92 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 0%	82.21 5%		85.3 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 9%	75.24 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) -4%	82.91 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 6%	86.01 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 10%	73.7 (21.1 - 87.2, n=82) -6%	65.3 (8.2 - 96.5, n=348) -16%
Random Write 4KB	15.45	14.69 -5%	19.62 27%	6.89 -55%	17.81 15%	59.87 288%	14.4 -7%	13.82 -11%	22.4 (3.4 - 88.2, n=92) 45%	17.5 (0.14 - 250, n=636) 13%
Random Read 4KB	83.98	82.62 -2%	54.65 -35%	72.98 -13%	101.01 20%	49.54 -41%	43.9 -48%	43.07 -49%	51.7 (11.4 - 149, n=92) -38%	40.2 (1.59 - 173, n=636) -52%
Sequential Write 256KB	104.87	104.2 -1%	211.6 102%	203.7 94%	155.57 48%	169.98 62%	188.7 80%	127.38 21%	170 (40 - 246, n=92) 62%	83.9 (2.99 - 253, n=636) -20%
Sequential Read 256KB	295.76	299.94 1%	283.12 -4%	271.98 -8%	705.38 138%	283.87 -4%	270.5 -9%	271.46 -8%	271 (115 - 704, n=92) -8%	238 (12.1 - 912, n=636) -20%

; Balanced: Ø29.3 (22-31)

; HD: Ø28.7 (19-31)

: Ø29.4 (21-31)

Carga Máxima

Inatividade


34.7 °C	34.7 °C	29.4 °C
33.9 °C	34.8 °C	29.4 °C
33.4 °C	33.2 °C	29.5 °C

Máximo: 34.8 °C
Médio: 32.6 °C


28.3 °C	30.5 °C	34.5 °C
26.9 °C	29.5 °C	35.8 °C
27.6 °C	29.7 °C	33.2 °C

Máximo: 35.8 °C
Médio: 30.7 °C

alimentação elétrica 25.5 °C | Temperatura do quarto 21.1 °C | Voltcraft IR-260

(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 32.6 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 33.1 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 34.8 °C / 95 F, compared to the average of 35.6 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 35.8 °C / 96 F, compared to the average of 34.1 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.1 °C / 81 F, compared to the device average of 33.1 °C / 92 F.

Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)

Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.6% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.2% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 29% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 62% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 56% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 37% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Xiaomi Mi 6X audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.3% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 6% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 89% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 34% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 60% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Consumo de energia

desligado	0.01 / 0.22 Watt
Ocioso	0.71 / 1.36 / 1.47 Watt
Carga	5.13 / 7.89 Watt


Key: min: , med: , max: Metrahit Energy

	Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 3300 mAh	Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 3000 mAh	Nokia 7 Plus 3800 mAh	Xiaomi Mi 6X 3010 mAh	Xiaomi Pocophone F1 4000 mAh	Honor 8X 3750 mAh	BQ Aquaris X2 3100 mAh	Sony Xperia XA2 3300 mAh	Average Samsung Exynos 7885	Average of class Smartphone
Power Consumption		21%	-9%	-7%	-15%	-24%	-14%	19%	10%	-8%
Idle Minimum *	0.71	0.67 6%	0.65 8%	0.65 8%	0.65 8%	0.92 -30%	0.65 8%	0.39 45%	0.69 (0.67 - 0.71, n=2) 3%	0.882 (0.2 - 3.4, n=671) -24%
Idle Average *	1.36	1.02 25%	1.76 -29%	1.94 -43%	1.97 -45%	2.3 -69%	2.24 -65%	1.61 -18%	1.19 (1.02 - 1.36, n=2) 12%	1.729 (0.6 - 6.2, n=670) -27%
Idle Maximum *	1.47	1.1 25%	1.78 -21%	1.97 -34%	2.01 -37%	2.32 -58%	2.26 -54%	1.62 -10%	1.285 (1.1 - 1.47, n=2) 13%	2.01 (0.74 - 6.6, n=671) -37%
Load Average *	5.13	3.86 25%	4.47 13%	4.65 9%	4.29 16%	4.37 15%	3.87 25%	3.12 39%	4.5 (3.86 - 5.13, n=2) 12%	4.04 (0.8 - 10.8, n=665) 21%
Load Maximum *	7.89	5.97 24%	9.13 -16%	5.93 25%	9.05 -15%	6.13 22%	6.8 14%	4.92 38%	6.93 (5.97 - 7.89, n=2) 12%	5.8 (1.2 - 14.2, n=665) 26%

* ... smaller is better

Tempo de Execução da Bateria

Ocioso (sem WLAN, min brilho)		24h 27min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3		10h 05min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p		13h 56min
Carga (máximo brilho)		4h 33min

	Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 3300 mAh	Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 3000 mAh	Nokia 7 Plus 3800 mAh	Xiaomi Mi 6X 3010 mAh	Xiaomi Pocophone F1 4000 mAh	Honor 8X 3750 mAh	BQ Aquaris X2 3100 mAh	Sony Xperia XA2 3300 mAh
Battery Runtime		4%	-8%	-26%	17%	41%	2%	30%
Reader / Idle	1467	1546 5%	1703 16%	1046 -29%	2088 42%			2503 71%
H.264	836	908 9%	706 -16%	608 -27%	936 12%			766 -8%
WiFi v1.3	605	646 7%	672 11%	495 -18%	808 34%	852 41%	617 2%	886 46%
Load	273	260 -5%	158 -42%	192 -30%	220 -19%			298 9%

Pro

+ Excelente Painel OLED

+ Boas durações da bateria

+ Acabamento sólido

+ GPS preciso

+ Três slots

+ Câmera tripla

Contra

- Marco de plástico

- SoC não muito apto

- Padrão USB antigo

- Lento leitor de digitais

Review: Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018). Test unit provided by notebooksbilliger.com

O Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018) se destaca em nosso teste com seu excelente painel Super AMOLED que pode se tornar muito brilhante, possui uma reprodução de cores extremamente precisa e ângulos de visão estáveis. Além disso, tem bons contraste graças ao valor de preto perfeito típico das telas OLED. Tudo somado, esta é uma tela que não tem igual nesta faixa de preço.

Estamos menos impressionados com o processador de gama média da Samsung. O Exynos 7885 mostra várias fraquezas ao lidar com cargas de trabalho diárias durante o nosso teste. O desempenho do sistema do Samsung SoC não consegue acompanhar a concorrência da Qualcomm. O Honor 8X equipado com o novo HiSilicon Kirin 710 também pode oferecer um desempenho mais consistente no dia a dia.

A figura de proa do Galaxy A7 (2018) é sua câmera tripla, que oferece grande versatilidade e qualidade fotográfica decente. O ângulo ultra-wide e a função Live Focus oferecem aos usuários opções interessantes, embora a última função possa ser um pouco decepcionante às vezes.

Como com o Honor 8X, ficamos nos perguntando por que a Samsung decidiu equipar seu modelo 2018 com um padrão microUSB antigo. Isso não faz sentido, especialmente considerando que o Galaxy A5 de 2017 já estava equipado com uma porta USB Type-C.

Os amantes das telas não chegarão perto do Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018), se estão procurando por um dispositivo adequado no segmento de preços de gama média.

Há muitas alternativas interessantes nesse segmento de gama média. Por exemplo, o poderoso Pocophone F1 ou o significantemente mais econômico campeão do preço-desempenho Xiaomi Mi A2. Caso o preço do Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018) caia um pouco, sua ótima tela e opções de câmera grande angular ainda fazem dele uma alternativa interessante.

Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 - 2018-11-1911/19/2018 v6
Marcus Herbrich

Acabamento

84%

Teclado

67 / 75 → 89%

Mouse

89%

Conectividade

44 / 60 → 74%

Peso

91%

Bateria

94%

Pantalha

91%

Desempenho do jogos

42 / 63 → 66%

Desempenho da aplicação

58 / 70 → 83%

Temperatura

93%

Ruído

100%

Audio

67 / 91 → 74%

Camera

70%

Médio

76%

86%

Smartphone - Médio equilibrado

Breve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018)

Size Comparison

Os Top 10

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

Display Response Times

Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 audio analysis

Xiaomi Mi 6X audio analysis

Pro

Contra

Pricecompare