Notebookcheck

Breve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018)

Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Daniel Schmidt (traduzido por Ricardo Soto), 12/28/2018

Connect four? O único ponto de venda do Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018) é certamente sua câmera traseira com um total de quatro lentes. No entanto, o smartphone de gama média nos surpreendeu em outras disciplinas em nossos testes, mantendo o ritmo com outros telefones da série S da Samsung.

Samsung Galaxy A9 2018 (Galaxy Serie)
Placa gráfica
Qualcomm Adreno 512
Memória
6144 MB 
Pantalha
6.3 polegadas 18.5:9, 2220 x 1080 pixel 392 PPI, capacitiva, Super AMOLED, OLED, Brilhante: sim
Disco rígido
128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 128 GB 
, 109 GB livre
Conexões
1 USB 2.0, Conexões Audio: Conector de 3,5mm, Card Reader: MicroSD de até 512 GB (FAT, FAT32, exFAT), 1 Leitor de Impressões Digitais, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensores: Acelerômetro, sensor de proximidade giroscópio, bússola, USB Type-C, Miracast, OTG
Funcionamento em rede
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM bands GSM 850 MHz, GSM 900 MHz, DCS 1800 MHz, PCS 1900 MHz; UMTS bands B1 (2100), B2 (1900), B4 (AWS), B5 (850), B8 (900); LTE bands B1 (2100), B2 (1900), B3 (1800), B4 (AWS), B5 (850), B7 (2600), B8 (900), B12 (700), B13 (700), B17 (700), B20 (800), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Tamanho
altura x largura x profundidade (em mm): 7.8 x 162.5 x 77
Bateria
3800 mAh Lítio-Polímero, Tempo de conversação 3G (de acordo com o fabricante): 23 h
Sistema Operativo
Android 8.0 Oreo
Camera
Primary Camera: 24 MPix Quad-camera: 24MP (f/1.7) + 8MP (f/2.4, 12mm) + 10MP (f/2.4,2x optical zoom) + 5MP (f/2.2)
Secondary Camera: 24 MPix f/2.0
Características adicionais
Alto falantes: Alto-falante mono, Teclado: virtual, Fonte de alimentação modular, cabo USB, fones "in-ear", Experience UI 9.0, 24 Meses Garantia, SAR value head : 0.351 W/Kg, SAR value body: 1.587 W/Kg , fanless
peso
183 g, Suprimento de energia: 48 g
Preço
600 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018)
Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018)
Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018)
Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018)
Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018)
Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018)
Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018)
Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018)
Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018)
Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018)

Size Comparison

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% +16%
LG G7 ThinQ
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
656 MBit/s ∼97% +12%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
652 MBit/s ∼97% +12%
Huawei P20
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
637 MBit/s ∼94% +9%
OnePlus 6T
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
629 (min: 621, max: 638) MBit/s ∼93% +8%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Adreno 512, 660, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
584 (min: 557, max: 605) MBit/s ∼87%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
Adreno 512, 660, 64 GB eMMC Flash
281 MBit/s ∼42% -52%
Nokia 7 Plus
Adreno 512, 660, 64 GB eMMC Flash
247 MBit/s ∼37% -58%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=318)
215 MBit/s ∼32% -63%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
LG G7 ThinQ
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
651 MBit/s ∼100% +128%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
647 (min: 598, max: 665) MBit/s ∼99% +127%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
519 MBit/s ∼80% +82%
OnePlus 6T
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
474 (min: 241, max: 497) MBit/s ∼73% +66%
Huawei P20
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
397 MBit/s ∼61% +39%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
Adreno 512, 660, 64 GB eMMC Flash
346 MBit/s ∼53% +21%
Nokia 7 Plus
Adreno 512, 660, 64 GB eMMC Flash
307 MBit/s ∼47% +8%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
Adreno 512, 660, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
285 (min: 249, max: 304) MBit/s ∼44%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=318)
210 MBit/s ∼32% -26%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø583 (557-605)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø285 (249-304)
GPS Garmin Edge500
GPS Garmin Edge500
GPS Garmin Edge500
GPS Garmin Edge500
GPS Garmin Edge500
GPS Garmin Edge500
GPS Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
GPS Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
GPS Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
GPS Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
GPS Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
GPS Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
24 MP camera
24 MP camera
2x zoom
2x zoom
8 MP ultra wide-angle camera
8 MP ultra wide-angle camera
24 MP camera
24 MP camera
2x zoom
2x zoom
8 MP ultra wide-angle camera
8 MP ultra wide-angle camera
Automatic mode
Automatic mode
Live focus
Live focus
Automatic mode
Automatic mode
Live focus
Live focus
Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018)
Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018)
Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018)
Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018)
Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018)

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
Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018)
Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018)
552
cd/m²
554
cd/m²
555
cd/m²
539
cd/m²
553
cd/m²
555
cd/m²
548
cd/m²
557
cd/m²
560
cd/m²
Distribuição do brilho
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Máximo: 560 cd/m² Médio: 552.6 cd/m² Minimum: 2.12 cd/m²
iluminação: 96 %
iluminação com acumulador: 553 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.2 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.2
ΔE Greyscale 1.7 | 0.64-98 Ø6.4
97% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.06
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
OLED, 2220x1080, 6.3
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
IPS, 2246x1080, 6.18
OnePlus 6T
Optic AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.41
Samsung Galaxy S9
Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 5.8
Huawei P20
LTPS, 2240x1080, 5.8
LG G7 ThinQ
IPS, 3120x1440, 6.1
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
LTPS, 2160x1080, 5.65
Nokia 7 Plus
IPS, 2160x1080, 6
Screen
-50%
-8%
9%
28%
-57%
-84%
-57%
Brightness middle
553
489
-12%
437
-21%
529
-4%
753
36%
974
76%
675
22%
458
-17%
Brightness
553
486
-12%
442
-20%
527
-5%
748
35%
975
76%
650
18%
463
-16%
Brightness Distribution
96
93
-3%
95
-1%
96
0%
96
0%
96
0%
92
-4%
92
-4%
Black Level *
0.34
0.37
0.49
0.46
0.22
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
2.2
3.8
-73%
2.21
-0%
1.4
36%
1.3
41%
5.4
-145%
5.9
-168%
4
-82%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
5.1
7.1
-39%
4.27
16%
4
22%
2.3
55%
13.1
-157%
9.5
-86%
7.4
-45%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
1.7
4.4
-159%
2.1
-24%
1.6
6%
1.7
-0%
5
-194%
6.6
-288%
4.7
-176%
Gamma
2.06 107%
2.22 99%
2.307 95%
2.16 102%
2.18 101%
2.31 95%
2.36 93%
2.19 100%
CCT
6434 101%
7213 90%
6353 102%
6358 102%
66.76 9736%
7480 87%
7846 83%
7425 88%
Contrast
1438
2035
1988
1467
2082

* ... smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM detected 250 Hz ≤ 99 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 250 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 250 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 9074 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 2 ms rise
↘ 2 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 1 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (25.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
4.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 2.4 ms rise
↘ 2.4 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 1 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (41 ms).
Geekbench 4.1/4.2
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
5542 Points ∼39%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
14369 Points ∼100% +159%
OnePlus 6T
13341 Points ∼93% +141%
Samsung Galaxy S9
6219 Points ∼43% +12%
LG G7 ThinQ
13497 Points ∼94% +144%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
5688 Points ∼40% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (5486 - 5811, n=5)
5640 Points ∼39% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (5759 - 21070, n=208)
4548 Points ∼32% -18%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
5826 Points ∼63%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
9182 Points ∼100% +58%
OnePlus 6T
8995 Points ∼98% +54%
Samsung Galaxy S9
8786 Points ∼96% +51%
Huawei P20
6557 Points ∼71% +13%
LG G7 ThinQ
9029 Points ∼98% +55%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
5856 Points ∼64% +1%
Nokia 7 Plus
5867 Points ∼64% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (5806 - 5867, n=7)
5844 Points ∼64% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (9852 - 11598, n=258)
4348 Points ∼47% -25%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
1601 Points ∼43%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
2468 Points ∼67% +54%
OnePlus 6T
2384 Points ∼65% +49%
Samsung Galaxy S9
3688 Points ∼100% +130%
Huawei P20
1886 Points ∼51% +18%
LG G7 ThinQ
2448 Points ∼66% +53%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
1579 Points ∼43% -1%
Nokia 7 Plus
1646 Points ∼45% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (1579 - 1646, n=7)
1616 Points ∼44% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (0 - 4824, n=259)
1282 Points ∼35% -20%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
5789 Points ∼68%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
8101 Points ∼95% +40%
OnePlus 6T
8487 Points ∼100% +47%
Samsung Galaxy S9
5291 Points ∼62% -9%
Huawei P20
7002 Points ∼83% +21%
LG G7 ThinQ
7717 Points ∼91% +33%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
5965 Points ∼70% +3%
Nokia 7 Plus
6077 Points ∼72% +5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (5789 - 6124, n=6)
6000 Points ∼71% +4%
Average of class Smartphone (3146 - 9868, n=266)
4614 Points ∼54% -20%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
6338 Points ∼60%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
9664 Points ∼91% +52%
OnePlus 6T
10590 Points ∼100% +67%
Samsung Galaxy S9
5736 Points ∼54% -9%
Huawei P20
8700 Points ∼82% +37%
LG G7 ThinQ
9503 Points ∼90% +50%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
6332 Points ∼60% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus
6825 Points ∼64% +8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (6332 - 7026, n=6)
6695 Points ∼63% +6%
Average of class Smartphone (4009 - 13531, n=434)
5020 Points ∼47% -21%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
2774 Points ∼75%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
2257 Points ∼61% -19%
OnePlus 6T
3681 Points ∼100% +33%
Samsung Galaxy S9
2590 Points ∼70% -7%
Huawei P20
2762 Points ∼75% 0%
LG G7 ThinQ
3416 Points ∼93% +23%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
2615 Points ∼71% -6%
Nokia 7 Plus
2789 Points ∼76% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (2431 - 2797, n=6)
2695 Points ∼73% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (1674 - 4439, n=286)
1729 Points ∼47% -38%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
1268 Points ∼22%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
4468 Points ∼76% +252%
OnePlus 6T
5877 Points ∼100% +363%
Samsung Galaxy S9
3697 Points ∼63% +192%
Huawei P20
2597 Points ∼44% +105%
LG G7 ThinQ
5322 Points ∼91% +320%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
1268 Points ∼22% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus
1239 Points ∼21% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (1134 - 1268, n=6)
1237 Points ∼21% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (380 - 8206, n=286)
1499 Points ∼26% +18%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
1433 Points ∼28%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
3669 Points ∼71% +156%
OnePlus 6T
5189 Points ∼100% +262%
Samsung Galaxy S9
3376 Points ∼65% +136%
Huawei P20
2632 Points ∼51% +84%
LG G7 ThinQ
4735 Points ∼91% +230%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
1432 Points ∼28% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus
1441 Points ∼28% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (1287 - 1442, n=6)
1409 Points ∼27% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (459 - 5200, n=289)
1391 Points ∼27% -3%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
2645 Points ∼78%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
2832 Points ∼84% +7%
OnePlus 6T
3374 Points ∼100% +28%
Samsung Galaxy S9
2650 Points ∼79% 0%
Huawei P20
2896 Points ∼86% +9%
LG G7 ThinQ
3109 Points ∼92% +18%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
2756 Points ∼82% +4%
Nokia 7 Plus
2768 Points ∼82% +5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (2645 - 2815, n=6)
2749 Points ∼81% +4%
Average of class Smartphone (375 - 4493, n=303)
1706 Points ∼51% -36%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
1757 Points ∼21%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
6898 Points ∼82% +293%
OnePlus 6T
8397 Points ∼100% +378%
Samsung Galaxy S9
4843 Points ∼58% +176%
Huawei P20
3683 Points ∼44% +110%
LG G7 ThinQ
7882 Points ∼94% +349%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
2024 Points ∼24% +15%
Nokia 7 Plus
1980 Points ∼24% +13%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (1734 - 2033, n=6)
1918 Points ∼23% +9%
Average of class Smartphone (131 - 14951, n=303)
2084 Points ∼25% +19%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
1898 Points ∼30%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
5230 Points ∼83% +176%
OnePlus 6T
6310 Points ∼100% +232%
Samsung Galaxy S9
4091 Points ∼65% +116%
Huawei P20
3463 Points ∼55% +82%
LG G7 ThinQ
5877 Points ∼93% +210%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
2151 Points ∼34% +13%
Nokia 7 Plus
2114 Points ∼34% +11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (1889 - 2151, n=6)
2054 Points ∼33% +8%
Average of class Smartphone (159 - 7856, n=304)
1750 Points ∼28% -8%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
2073 Points ∼59%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
2528 Points ∼71% +22%
OnePlus 6T
3537 Points ∼100% +71%
Samsung Galaxy S9
2486 Points ∼70% +20%
Huawei P20
2795 Points ∼79% +35%
LG G7 ThinQ
3255 Points ∼92% +57%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
2628 Points ∼74% +27%
Nokia 7 Plus
2749 Points ∼78% +33%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (2073 - 2757, n=6)
2607 Points ∼74% +26%
Average of class Smartphone (1580 - 4216, n=361)
1663 Points ∼47% -20%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
1185 Points ∼23%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
4746 Points ∼91% +301%
OnePlus 6T
5241 Points ∼100% +342%
Samsung Galaxy S9
3553 Points ∼68% +200%
Huawei P20
3040 Points ∼58% +157%
LG G7 ThinQ
5006 Points ∼96% +322%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
1196 Points ∼23% +1%
Nokia 7 Plus
1161 Points ∼22% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (1161 - 1201, n=6)
1184 Points ∼23% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 5246, n=361)
1213 Points ∼23% +2%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
1354 Points ∼29%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
3972 Points ∼84% +193%
OnePlus 6T
4734 Points ∼100% +250%
Samsung Galaxy S9
3244 Points ∼69% +140%
Huawei P20
2982 Points ∼63% +120%
LG G7 ThinQ
4471 Points ∼94% +230%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
1361 Points ∼29% +1%
Nokia 7 Plus
1332 Points ∼28% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (1332 - 1372, n=7)
1353 Points ∼29% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (445 - 4734, n=369)
1160 Points ∼25% -14%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
2741 Points ∼79%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
2720 Points ∼78% -1%
OnePlus 6T
3483 Points ∼100% +27%
Samsung Galaxy S9
2600 Points ∼75% -5%
Huawei P20
2811 Points ∼81% +3%
LG G7 ThinQ
3150 Points ∼90% +15%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
2638 Points ∼76% -4%
Nokia 7 Plus
2734 Points ∼78% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (2638 - 2780, n=6)
2718 Points ∼78% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (532 - 4215, n=395)
1563 Points ∼45% -43%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
1918 Points ∼23%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
8261 Points ∼100% +331%
OnePlus 6T
8272 Points ∼100% +331%
Samsung Galaxy S9
4569 Points ∼55% +138%
Huawei P20
3550 Points ∼43% +85%
LG G7 ThinQ
7633 Points ∼92% +298%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
1938 Points ∼23% +1%
Nokia 7 Plus
1895 Points ∼23% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (1856 - 1938, n=6)
1906 Points ∼23% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (46 - 8312, n=395)
1652 Points ∼20% -14%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
2054 Points ∼32%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
5687 Points ∼90% +177%
OnePlus 6T
6336 Points ∼100% +208%
Samsung Galaxy S9
3911 Points ∼62% +90%
Huawei P20
3354 Points ∼53% +63%
LG G7 ThinQ
5799 Points ∼92% +182%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
2059 Points ∼32% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus
2035 Points ∼32% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (1999 - 2071, n=6)
2040 Points ∼32% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (58 - 6454, n=403)
1407 Points ∼22% -31%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
18523 Points ∼53%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
34928 Points ∼100% +89%
OnePlus 6T
35022 Points ∼100% +89%
Samsung Galaxy S9
26851 Points ∼77% +45%
Huawei P20
23046 Points ∼66% +24%
LG G7 ThinQ
27817 Points ∼79% +50%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
19050 Points ∼54% +3%
Nokia 7 Plus
20085 Points ∼57% +8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (18523 - 21016, n=6)
19845 Points ∼57% +7%
Average of class Smartphone (3958 - 37475, n=550)
12988 Points ∼37% -30%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
29065 Points ∼34%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
82125 Points ∼97% +183%
OnePlus 6T
84998 Points ∼100% +192%
Samsung Galaxy S9
48433 Points ∼57% +67%
Huawei P20
34146 Points ∼40% +17%
LG G7 ThinQ
80534 Points ∼95% +177%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
29306 Points ∼34% +1%
Nokia 7 Plus
29333 Points ∼35% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (26322 - 29422, n=6)
28739 Points ∼34% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (2465 - 162695, n=550)
18258 Points ∼21% -37%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
25783 Points ∼40%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
63159 Points ∼98% +145%
OnePlus 6T
64534 Points ∼100% +150%
Samsung Galaxy S9
41093 Points ∼64% +59%
Huawei P20
30845 Points ∼48% +20%
LG G7 ThinQ
56669 Points ∼88% +120%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
26175 Points ∼41% +2%
Nokia 7 Plus
26610 Points ∼41% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (24669 - 26731, n=6)
26112 Points ∼40% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (2915 - 77599, n=551)
15329 Points ∼24% -41%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
46 fps ∼30%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
150 fps ∼99% +226%
OnePlus 6T
152 fps ∼100% +230%
Samsung Galaxy S9
144 fps ∼95% +213%
Huawei P20
125 fps ∼82% +172%
LG G7 ThinQ
144 fps ∼95% +213%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
46 fps ∼30% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus
50 fps ∼33% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (43 - 51, n=6)
47.7 fps ∼31% +4%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 251, n=575)
31.9 fps ∼21% -31%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
50 fps ∼83%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
60 fps ∼100% +20%
OnePlus 6T
60 fps ∼100% +20%
Samsung Galaxy S9
60 fps ∼100% +20%
Huawei P20
59 fps ∼98% +18%
LG G7 ThinQ
60 fps ∼100% +20%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
51 fps ∼85% +2%
Nokia 7 Plus
48 fps ∼80% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (47 - 52, n=6)
49.3 fps ∼82% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (6.9 - 120, n=578)
25.2 fps ∼42% -50%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
23 fps ∼32%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
71 fps ∼97% +209%
OnePlus 6T
59 fps ∼81% +157%
Samsung Galaxy S9
73 fps ∼100% +217%
Huawei P20
59 fps ∼81% +157%
LG G7 ThinQ
63 fps ∼86% +174%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
23 fps ∼32% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus
23 fps ∼32% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (21 - 23, n=6)
22.7 fps ∼31% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 132, n=497)
17.2 fps ∼24% -25%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
21 fps ∼36%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
58 fps ∼98% +176%
OnePlus 6T
59 fps ∼100% +181%
Samsung Galaxy S9
45 fps ∼76% +114%
Huawei P20
56 fps ∼95% +167%
LG G7 ThinQ
41 fps ∼69% +95%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
22 fps ∼37% +5%
Nokia 7 Plus
22 fps ∼37% +5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (21 - 23, n=6)
21.7 fps ∼37% +3%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 115, n=500)
16.3 fps ∼28% -22%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
15 fps ∼25%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
35 fps ∼59% +133%
OnePlus 6T
59 fps ∼100% +293%
Samsung Galaxy S9
46 fps ∼78% +207%
Huawei P20
39 fps ∼66% +160%
LG G7 ThinQ
51 fps ∼86% +240%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
15 fps ∼25% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus
14 fps ∼24% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (13 - 15, n=6)
14.5 fps ∼25% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (9.6 - 88, n=358)
14.8 fps ∼25% -1%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
14 fps ∼26%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
54 fps ∼100% +286%
OnePlus 6T
53 fps ∼98% +279%
Samsung Galaxy S9
24 fps ∼44% +71%
Huawei P20
39 fps ∼72% +179%
LG G7 ThinQ
26 fps ∼48% +86%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
14 fps ∼26% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus
15 fps ∼28% +7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (12 - 15, n=7)
13.9 fps ∼26% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (6.6 - 110, n=361)
14.2 fps ∼26% +1%
GFXBench
High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
3 fps ∼14%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
22 fps ∼100% +633%
OnePlus 6T
22 fps ∼100% +633%
LG G7 ThinQ
13 fps ∼59% +333%
Nokia 7 Plus
5.2 fps ∼24% +73%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (3 - 6.3, n=3)
4.83 fps ∼22% +61%
Average of class Smartphone (3 - 59, n=70)
10.4 fps ∼47% +247%
2560x1440 High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
4.8 fps ∼34%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
14 fps ∼100% +192%
OnePlus 6T
14 fps ∼100% +192%
LG G7 ThinQ
14 fps ∼100% +192%
Nokia 7 Plus
3.2 fps ∼23% -33%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (3.2 - 4.8, n=3)
3.73 fps ∼27% -22%
Average of class Smartphone (1.4 - 31, n=70)
6.8 fps ∼49% +42%
Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
7.5 fps ∼22%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
31 fps ∼91% +313%
OnePlus 6T
34 fps ∼100% +353%
LG G7 ThinQ
20 fps ∼59% +167%
Nokia 7 Plus
8.2 fps ∼24% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (7.5 - 9.7, n=3)
8.47 fps ∼25% +13%
Average of class Smartphone (5.7 - 59, n=70)
15.1 fps ∼44% +101%
1920x1080 Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
8.6 fps ∼23%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
32 fps ∼86% +272%
OnePlus 6T
37 fps ∼100% +330%
LG G7 ThinQ
37 fps ∼100% +330%
Nokia 7 Plus
8.6 fps ∼23% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (8.6 - 8.6, n=3)
8.6 fps ∼23% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (3.8 - 63, n=69)
16.3 fps ∼44% +90%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
9.1 fps ∼26%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
35 fps ∼100% +285%
OnePlus 6T
35 fps ∼100% +285%
Samsung Galaxy S9
28 fps ∼80% +208%
Huawei P20
23 fps ∼66% +153%
LG G7 ThinQ
33 fps ∼94% +263%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
9.1 fps ∼26% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus
8.3 fps ∼24% -9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (8.3 - 9.1, n=6)
8.93 fps ∼26% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (3.8 - 54, n=289)
10.1 fps ∼29% +11%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
8.3 fps ∼25%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
33 fps ∼100% +298%
OnePlus 6T
31 fps ∼94% +273%
Samsung Galaxy S9
14 fps ∼42% +69%
Huawei P20
23 fps ∼70% +177%
LG G7 ThinQ
17 fps ∼52% +105%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
8.6 fps ∼26% +4%
Nokia 7 Plus
9.1 fps ∼28% +10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (8.3 - 9.8, n=7)
8.76 fps ∼27% +6%
Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 58, n=292)
9.12 fps ∼28% +10%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
140878 Points ∼48%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
263165 Points ∼89% +87%
OnePlus 6T
294488 Points ∼100% +109%
Samsung Galaxy S9
243861 Points ∼83% +73%
Huawei P20
200756 Points ∼68% +43%
LG G7 ThinQ
256276 Points ∼87% +82%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
140875 Points ∼48% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus
141701 Points ∼48% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (126462 - 142189, n=6)
138803 Points ∼47% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (17073 - 348178, n=181)
120686 Points ∼41% -14%
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
116969 Points ∼51%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
227026 Points ∼99% +94%
OnePlus 6T
228939 Points ∼100% +96%
Samsung Galaxy S9
217950 Points ∼95% +86%
Huawei P20
179393 Points ∼78% +53%
LG G7 ThinQ
223464 Points ∼98% +91%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
115834 Points ∼51% -1%
Nokia 7 Plus
117165 Points ∼51% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (110680 - 120479, n=7)
116660 Points ∼51% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (23275 - 254229, n=401)
77580 Points ∼34% -34%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
1105 Points ∼79%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
1296 Points ∼93% +17%
OnePlus 6T
1398 Points ∼100% +27%
Samsung Galaxy S9
1099 Points ∼79% -1%
Huawei P20
1313 Points ∼94% +19%
LG G7 ThinQ
1374 Points ∼98% +24%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
1146 Points ∼82% +4%
Nokia 7 Plus
1101 Points ∼79% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (1078 - 1146, n=6)
1105 Points ∼79% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1731, n=510)
704 Points ∼50% -36%
Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
2332 Points ∼29%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
7945 Points ∼100% +241%
OnePlus 6T
7969 Points ∼100% +242%
Samsung Galaxy S9
6373 Points ∼80% +173%
Huawei P20
3697 Points ∼46% +59%
LG G7 ThinQ
7906 Points ∼99% +239%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
2279 Points ∼29% -2%
Nokia 7 Plus
2298 Points ∼29% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (2257 - 2332, n=6)
2292 Points ∼29% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 15969, n=510)
1765 Points ∼22% -24%
Memory (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
2393 Points ∼55%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
3239 Points ∼75% +35%
OnePlus 6T
4344 Points ∼100% +82%
Samsung Galaxy S9
2669 Points ∼61% +12%
Huawei P20
4154 Points ∼96% +74%
LG G7 ThinQ
3744 Points ∼86% +56%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
2494 Points ∼57% +4%
Nokia 7 Plus
2503 Points ∼58% +5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (2256 - 2503, n=6)
2411 Points ∼56% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 6283, n=510)
1276 Points ∼29% -47%
System (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
5063 Points ∼62%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
6506 Points ∼80% +29%
OnePlus 6T
8156 Points ∼100% +61%
Samsung Galaxy S9
6234 Points ∼76% +23%
Huawei P20
5797 Points ∼71% +14%
LG G7 ThinQ
8070 Points ∼99% +59%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
5048 Points ∼62% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus
4976 Points ∼61% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (4797 - 5282, n=6)
5066 Points ∼62% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 12202, n=510)
2561 Points ∼31% -49%
Overall (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
2364 Points ∼53%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
3838 Points ∼86% +62%
OnePlus 6T
4458 Points ∼100% +89%
Samsung Galaxy S9
3285 Points ∼74% +39%
Huawei P20
3288 Points ∼74% +39%
LG G7 ThinQ
4257 Points ∼95% +80%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
2394 Points ∼54% +1%
Nokia 7 Plus
2369 Points ∼53% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (2322 - 2394, n=7)
2350 Points ∼53% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (150 - 6097, n=514)
1279 Points ∼29% -46%

Legend

 
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018 Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Qualcomm Adreno 512, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
OnePlus 6T Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy S9 Samsung Exynos 9810, ARM Mali-G72 MP18, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Huawei P20 HiSilicon Kirin 970, ARM Mali-G72 MP12, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
LG G7 ThinQ Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Qualcomm Adreno 512, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
Nokia 7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Qualcomm Adreno 512, 64 GB eMMC Flash
JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66)
88.081 Points ∼100% +70%
OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70)
86.123 Points ∼98% +66%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Chrome 68)
75.959 Points ∼86% +47%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
67.721 Points ∼77% +31%
Huawei P20 (Chrome 66.0.3359.126)
56.188 Points ∼64% +9%
Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60)
53.89 Points ∼61% +4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (49.4 - 54.7, n=6)
52.5 Points ∼60% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018 (Chrome 70)
51.786 Points ∼59%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro (Chrome 67)
49.396 Points ∼56% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 273, n=433)
37.1 Points ∼42% -28%
Octane V2 - Total Score
OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70)
16824 Points ∼100% +66%
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66)
16720 Points ∼99% +65%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
15233 Points ∼91% +50%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Chrome 68)
14514 Points ∼86% +43%
Huawei P20 (Chrome 66.0.3359.126)
11468 Points ∼68% +13%
Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60)
10945 Points ∼65% +8%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018 (Chrome 70)
10145 Points ∼60%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (9582 - 10945, n=7)
10112 Points ∼60% 0%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro (Chrome 67)
9582 Points ∼57% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 43280, n=569)
5661 Points ∼34% -44%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (603 - 59466, n=589)
11383 ms * ∼100% -196%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro (Chrome 67)
4093.5 ms * ∼36% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (3796 - 4769, n=6)
4061 ms * ∼36% -6%
Huawei P20 (Chrome 66.0.3359.126)
3978.9 ms * ∼35% -4%
Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60)
3937.3 ms * ∼35% -2%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018 (Chrome 70)
3841.8 (min: 1) ms * ∼34%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Chrome 68)
2713.6 ms * ∼24% +29%
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66)
2484.1 ms * ∼22% +35%
OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70)
2281.6 ms * ∼20% +41%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
2077.8 ms * ∼18% +46%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66)
97 Points ∼100% +64%
Huawei P20
69 Points ∼71% +17%
Average of class Smartphone (25 - 161, n=69)
63.7 Points ∼66% +8%
Samsung Galaxy S9
63 Points ∼65% +7%
Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60)
63 Points ∼65% +7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (58 - 63, n=4)
60.3 Points ∼62% +2%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018 (Chrome 70)
59 Points ∼61%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro (Chrome 67)
58 Points ∼60% -2%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70)
260 Points ∼100% +56%
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66)
252 Points ∼97% +51%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Chrome 68)
223 Points ∼86% +34%
Huawei P20 (Chrome 66.0.3359.126)
182 Points ∼70% +9%
Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60)
168 Points ∼65% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (159 - 173, n=5)
168 Points ∼65% +1%
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018 (Chrome 70)
167 Points ∼64%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
163 Points ∼63% -2%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro (Chrome 67)
159 Points ∼61% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (77 - 362, n=290)
113 Points ∼43% -32%

* ... smaller is better

Samsung Galaxy A9 2018Xiaomi Pocophone F1OnePlus 6TSamsung Galaxy S9Huawei P20LG G7 ThinQBQ Aquaris X2 ProNokia 7 PlusAverage 128 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
8%
27%
25%
209%
15%
-15%
-11%
87%
-36%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
59.66 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
65.58 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
10%
67.18 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
13%
62.67 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
5%
61.13 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
2%
62.31
4%
65.1 (51.3 - 72.4, n=8)
9%
46.3 (3.4 - 87.1, n=330)
-22%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
73.66 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
85.3 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
16%
79.22 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
8%
84.72 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
15%
83.35 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
13%
82.21
12%
80.3 (73.7 - 85.4, n=8)
9%
64.4 (8.2 - 96.5, n=330)
-13%
Random Write 4KB
19.79
17.81
-10%
22
11%
23.07
17%
161.49
716%
23.26
18%
15.43
-22%
19.62
-1%
99.8 (19.5 - 250, n=21)
404%
17 (0.14 - 250, n=618)
-14%
Random Read 4KB
116.76
101.01
-13%
138.5
19%
131
12%
147.04
26%
110.46
-5%
51.25
-56%
54.65
-53%
140 (117 - 158, n=21)
20%
39.3 (1.59 - 173, n=618)
-66%
Sequential Write 256KB
194.65
155.57
-20%
204.4
5%
206.94
6%
193.56
-1%
176.45
-9%
204.83
5%
211.6
9%
199 (183 - 212, n=21)
2%
81.3 (2.99 - 253, n=618)
-58%
Sequential Read 256KB
426.63
705.38
65%
735.3
72%
815.43
91%
826.76
94%
695.15
63%
280.78
-34%
283.12
-34%
762 (427 - 912, n=21)
79%
235 (12.1 - 912, n=618)
-45%
PUBG Molbile
010203040Tooltip
: Ø29.8 (25-31)
Asphalt 9 Legends
0102030Tooltip
: Ø27.7 (24-30)
Carga Máxima
 33.8 °C32.8 °C29.4 °C 
 33.4 °C32.1 °C29.6 °C 
 32.8 °C32.6 °C29.5 °C 
Máximo: 33.8 °C
Médio: 31.8 °C
28.6 °C30.7 °C32 °C
29 °C29.5 °C33.4 °C
28 °C30.4 °C33 °C
Máximo: 33.4 °C
Médio: 30.5 °C
alimentação elétrica  29.7 °C | Temperatura do quarto 22 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 31.8 °C / 89 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 33.8 °C / 93 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 33.4 °C / 92 F, compared to the average of 34.2 °C / 94 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.2 °C / 79 F, compared to the device average of 33.2 °C / 92 F.
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2032.8392524.328.53118.619.94024.330.15033.835.26321.223.48024.82310018.525.212516.436.616017.144.520017.941.825016.850.731514.953.940015.158.750014.262.963013.966.580014.868100014.269.4125014.771.2160014.473.4200014.372.325001475.3315013.880.2400014.881500014.475.663001573.7800014.773.61000014.870.51250014.860.81600014.755SPL26.787.5N0.865.9median 14.8median 68Delta0.610.435.430.133.236.823.730.131.933.139.738.830.233.925.221.521.923.822.326.419.338.316.646.916.347.916.552.41858.715.463.715.663.114.269.614.876.314.672.614.468.414.575.214.870.814.674.114.871.614.871.115.266.614.663.815.162.114.654.415.344.927.183.40.954median 15.1median 63.71.211.8hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseSamsung Galaxy A9 2018Xiaomi Pocophone F1
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 18% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 71% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 49% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 43% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Xiaomi Pocophone F1 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.2% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (10.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 35% of all tested devices in this class were better, 14% similar, 51% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 62% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 29% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Consumo de energia
desligadodarklight 0.02 / 0.28 Watt
Ociosodarkmidlight 1.06 / 1.94 / 1.98 Watt
Carga midlight 3.56 / 7.49 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
3800 mAh
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
4000 mAh
OnePlus 6T
3700 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S9
3000 mAh
Huawei P20
3400 mAh
LG G7 ThinQ
3000 mAh
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
3100 mAh
Nokia 7 Plus
3800 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-1%
8%
30%
-11%
-11%
-2%
2%
-7%
7%
Idle Minimum *
1.06
0.65
39%
0.7
34%
0.65
39%
0.67
37%
1.16
-9%
0.63
41%
0.65
39%
0.792 (0.56 - 1.2, n=6)
25%
0.878 (0.2 - 3.4, n=651)
17%
Idle Average *
1.94
1.97
-2%
1.1
43%
0.81
58%
2.05
-6%
1.98
-2%
2.16
-11%
1.76
9%
1.918 (1.51 - 2.2, n=6)
1%
1.722 (0.6 - 6.2, n=650)
11%
Idle Maximum *
1.98
2.01
-2%
2.1
-6%
0.92
54%
2.11
-7%
2.07
-5%
2.18
-10%
1.78
10%
2.26 (1.54 - 4.1, n=6)
-14%
1.997 (0.74 - 6.6, n=651)
-1%
Load Average *
3.56
4.29
-21%
4.2
-18%
4.76
-34%
6.15
-73%
4.51
-27%
4.48
-26%
4.47
-26%
4.88 (3.56 - 8.2, n=6)
-37%
4.04 (0.8 - 10.8, n=645)
-13%
Load Maximum *
7.49
9.05
-21%
8.3
-11%
5.16
31%
8.09
-8%
8.3
-11%
7.87
-5%
9.13
-22%
8.42 (5.93 - 12.2, n=6)
-12%
5.78 (1.2 - 14.2, n=645)
23%

* ... smaller is better

Tempo de Execução da Bateria
Ocioso (sem WLAN, min brilho)
29h 40min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
11h 29min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
16h 45min
Carga (máximo brilho)
3h 25min
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
3800 mAh
Xiaomi Pocophone F1
4000 mAh
OnePlus 6T
3700 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S9
3000 mAh
Huawei P20
3400 mAh
LG G7 ThinQ
3000 mAh
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
3100 mAh
Nokia 7 Plus
3800 mAh
Battery Runtime
9%
13%
-31%
13%
-1%
-25%
-15%
Reader / Idle
1780
2088
17%
1936
9%
1182
-34%
1888
6%
1662
-7%
1374
-23%
1703
-4%
H.264
1005
936
-7%
903
-10%
609
-39%
810
-19%
908
-10%
658
-35%
706
-30%
WiFi v1.3
689
808
17%
865
26%
474
-31%
818
19%
591
-14%
605
-12%
672
-2%
Load
205
220
7%
261
27%
164
-20%
295
44%
260
27%
145
-29%
158
-23%

Pro

+ Painel OLED atraente
+ Alto brilho
+ Armazenamento UFS de 128 GB
+ Design
+ Boa câmera de "selfies"
+ quad-camera...

Contra

- ...com qualidade de imagem não melhor que a média
- Preço de varejo recomendado alto
- SoC de 2017
- Desempenho
- Velocidade do armazenamento
In review: Samsung Galaxy A9 2018. Test device courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de.
In review: Samsung Galaxy A9 2018. Test device courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de.

Com o seu impressionante vidro traseiro, a aparência externa do Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018) é um verdadeiro destaque. Sua qualidade de fabricação também é muito boa, embora nosso dispositivo de teste, em particular, tenha algumas pequenas falhas. Como o fabricante coreano parece estar fazendo mais frequentemente, a Samsung escolheu equipar seu mais novo membro da família na série Galaxy A com um painel OLED muito bom. Em termos de reprodução de cores e brilho, o Galaxy A9 (2018) compete no topo da sua liga. No entanto, o mesmo não pode ser dito do desempenho do sistema no padrão de fábrica. Devido às suas animações pré-instaladas, o smartphone de gama média se sente um pouco lento, o único remédio aqui é se livrar deles no menu de opções do desenvolvedor.

Devido às suas animações pré-instaladas, o smartphone de gama média se sente um pouco lento, o único remédio aqui é para se livrar deles no menu de opções do desenvolvedor. Claro, nem todos os smartphones de gama alta precisam ser comparados com o Xiaomi Pocophone F1, mas o fabricante chinês conseguiu equipar seu dispositivo de gama média com o atual chip de gama alta da Qualcomm. Como resultado, com um preço de varejo recomendado de 600 Euros (~$680), a Samsung poderia ter pelo menos equipado o Galaxy A9 (2018) com o chip de maior desempenho do ano passado - considerando que a empresa optou um SoC de 2017 em primeiro lugar.     

O Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018) é um bom e muito atraente smartphone de gama média - mas ao preço atual de cerca de 480 Euros (~$550; versão internacional ~$525), existem alternativas melhores no mercado.

O ponto de venda exclusivo do Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018) - a câmera quádrupla na parte de trás - pode ser usada para uma ampla gama de aplicações, graças às suas quatro lentes diferentes. Combina todas as vantagens habituais das multi-câmaras (efeito bokeh, ultra grande angular, zoom ótico) num único dispositivo. No entanto, nenhuma conclusão deve ser tirada com base no preço de varejo recomendado quando se trata da qualidade da câmera principal. A câmera é muito rápida, mas em termos de qualidade de imagem, ela não tem desempenho melhor do que a média de um smartphone de gama média.

Samsung Galaxy A9 2018 - 12/22/2018 v6
Marcus Herbrich

Acabamento
88%
Teclado
67 / 75 → 90%
Mouse
93%
Conectividade
47 / 60 → 79%
Peso
90%
Bateria
96%
Pantalha
90%
Desempenho do jogos
54 / 63 → 85%
Desempenho da aplicação
61 / 70 → 87%
Temperatura
94%
Ruído
100%
Audio
71 / 91 → 78%
Camera
74%
Médio
79%
88%
Smartphone - Médio equilibrado

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Análises e revisões de portáteis e celulares > Análises > Análises > Breve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018)
Marcus Herbrich, 2018-12-28 (Update: 2019-01- 2)