Breve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy A90 5G - Recortando esquinas pelo 5G
Competing Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
84.2 % | 12/2019 | Samsung Galaxy A90 5G SD 855, Adreno 640 | 206 g | 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.70" | 2400x1080 | |
86.5 % | 09/2019 | Apple iPhone 11 A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU | 194 g | 64 GB SSD | 6.10" | 1792x828 | |
87.2 % | 07/2019 | Samsung Galaxy A80 SD 730, Adreno 618 | 220 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.70" | 2400x1080 | |
86.9 % | 11/2019 | OnePlus 7T Pro SD 855+, Adreno 640 | 206 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.67" | 3120x1440 | |
85.7 % | 12/2019 | Google Pixel 4 SD 855, Adreno 640 | 162 g | 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 5.70" | 2280x1080 |
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
Size Comparison
Networking | |
iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
Google Pixel 4 | |
Apple iPhone 11 | |
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
OnePlus 7T Pro | |
Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
iperf3 receive AX12 | |
Apple iPhone 11 | |
Google Pixel 4 | |
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
OnePlus 7T Pro | |
Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) |
|
iluminação: 94 %
iluminação com acumulador: 581 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.44 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 4 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
117.1% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.118
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G Super AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.70 | Apple iPhone 11 IPS, 1792x828, 6.10 | Samsung Galaxy A80 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.70 | OnePlus 7T Pro AMOLED, 3120x1440, 6.67 | Google Pixel 4 OLED, 2280x1080, 5.70 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | 45% | 12% | 26% | 39% | |
Brightness middle | 581 | 679 17% | 478 -18% | 606 4% | 554 -5% |
Brightness | 581 | 671 15% | 486 -16% | 611 5% | 550 -5% |
Brightness Distribution | 94 | 93 -1% | 96 2% | 95 1% | 94 0% |
Black Level * | 0.68 | ||||
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 5.44 | 0.8 85% | 2.97 45% | 3.46 36% | 0.8 85% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 13.05 | 2.4 82% | 10.18 22% | 5.64 57% | 1.4 89% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 4 | 1.1 72% | 2.5 37% | 2 50% | 1.3 67% |
Gamma | 2.118 104% | 2.24 98% | 2.031 108% | 2.258 97% | 2.22 99% |
CCT | 5882 111% | 6610 98% | 6533 99% | 6779 96% | 6213 105% |
Contrast | 999 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 223 Hz | ||
The display backlight flickers at 223 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 223 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 18062 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. |
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 3 ms rise | |
↘ 3 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. » 13 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21.6 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
10 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 5 ms rise | |
↘ 5 ms fall | ||
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 18 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (33.9 ms). |
Geekbench 5.0 | |
5.0 Single-Core (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
Apple iPhone 11 | |
OnePlus 7T Pro | |
Google Pixel 4 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (725 - 750, n=8) | |
Average of class Smartphone (703 - 1668, n=12, last 2 years) | |
5.0 Multi-Core (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
Apple iPhone 11 | |
OnePlus 7T Pro | |
Google Pixel 4 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (2441 - 2852, n=8) | |
Average of class Smartphone (1908 - 4353, n=12, last 2 years) | |
OpenCL Score 5.0 (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
OnePlus 7T Pro | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (2218 - 2395, n=7) | |
Average of class Smartphone (498 - 9123, n=7, last 2 years) | |
Vulkan Score 5.0 (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
OnePlus 7T Pro | |
Google Pixel 4 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (1849 - 2154, n=7) | |
Average of class Smartphone (261 - 7988, n=6, last 2 years) |
PCMark for Android | |
Work performance score (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
OnePlus 7T Pro | |
Google Pixel 4 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (10330 - 14439, n=19) | |
Average of class Smartphone (10884 - 19297, n=2, last 2 years) | |
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
OnePlus 7T Pro | |
Google Pixel 4 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (8342 - 11440, n=19) | |
Average of class Smartphone (9101 - 12871, n=4, last 2 years) |
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | |
T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
Apple iPhone 11 | |
Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
OnePlus 7T Pro | |
Google Pixel 4 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (59 - 91, n=20) | |
Average of class Smartphone (22 - 165, n=180, last 2 years) | |
1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
Apple iPhone 11 | |
Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
OnePlus 7T Pro | |
Google Pixel 4 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (85 - 167, n=20) | |
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 791, n=180, last 2 years) |
GFXBench 3.0 | |
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
Apple iPhone 11 | |
Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
OnePlus 7T Pro | |
Google Pixel 4 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (46 - 85, n=20) | |
Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 165, n=181, last 2 years) | |
1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
Apple iPhone 11 | |
Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
OnePlus 7T Pro | |
Google Pixel 4 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (50 - 102, n=20) | |
Average of class Smartphone (9.2 - 363, n=181, last 2 years) |
GFXBench 3.1 | |
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
Apple iPhone 11 | |
Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
OnePlus 7T Pro | |
Google Pixel 4 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (27 - 58, n=20) | |
Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 158, n=181, last 2 years) | |
1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
Apple iPhone 11 | |
Samsung Galaxy A80 | |
OnePlus 7T Pro | |
Google Pixel 4 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (35 - 71, n=20) | |
Average of class Smartphone (6.2 - 279, n=181, last 2 years) |
AnTuTu v8 | |
Total Score (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
OnePlus 7T Pro | |
Google Pixel 4 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (376698 - 451559, n=8) | |
Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
CPU (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
OnePlus 7T Pro | |
Google Pixel 4 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (114777 - 140166, n=8) | |
Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
GPU (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
OnePlus 7T Pro | |
Google Pixel 4 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (158097 - 175532, n=8) | |
Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
MEM (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
OnePlus 7T Pro | |
Google Pixel 4 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (52596 - 75544, n=8) | |
Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
UX (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
OnePlus 7T Pro | |
Google Pixel 4 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (51228 - 72343, n=8) | |
Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) |
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 351, n=170, last 2 years) | |
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G (Chrome 78) | |
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (45.5 - 67, n=16) | |
Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G (Chrome 78) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (84.4 - 120, n=17) | |
Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78) | |
Average of class Smartphone (66.1 - 104.3, n=2, last 2 years) | |
Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
Average of class Smartphone (14.9 - 445, n=154, last 2 years) | |
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G (Chrome 78) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (42.5 - 67.9, n=15) | |
Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chome 75) |
WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
Average of class Smartphone (37 - 304, n=119, last 2 years) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (90 - 129, n=20) | |
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G (Chrome 78) | |
Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78) | |
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 89112, n=205, last 2 years) | |
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (17011 - 33918, n=21) | |
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G (Chrome 78) | |
Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (1852 - 2611, n=19) | |
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G (Chrome 78) | |
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78) | |
Average of class Smartphone (388 - 9999, n=168, last 2 years) | |
Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) |
* ... smaller is better
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | Samsung Galaxy A80 | OnePlus 7T Pro | Google Pixel 4 | Average 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | -64% | -28% | -39% | 3% | 50% | |
Sequential Read 256KB | 1418 | 502 -65% | 1489 5% | 655 -54% | 1520 ? 7% | 1471 ? 4% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 522 | 190.4 -64% | 405 -22% | 247.7 -53% | 546 ? 5% | 1084 ? 108% |
Random Read 4KB | 190.5 | 117.5 -38% | 169 -11% | 122.4 -36% | 206 ? 8% | 243 ? 28% |
Random Write 4KB | 168.5 | 21.6 -87% | 26 -85% | 146.6 -13% | 193.9 ? 15% | 267 ? 58% |
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 75.1 ? | 67.3 ? -10% | ||||
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 59.4 ? | 55.7 ? -6% |
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 44.7 °C / 112 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 40.5 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.7 °C / 85 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (79.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 61.3% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 61.3% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 61.3% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (122.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 90% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 2% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 97% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Samsung Galaxy A80 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 72.6% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 72.6% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 72.6% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (119.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 86% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 4% 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%
desligado | 0 / 0.2 Watt |
Ocioso | 0.6 / 0.9 / 1.4 Watt |
Carga |
4.5 / 9 Watt |
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G 4500 mAh | Apple iPhone 11 3110 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A80 3700 mAh | OnePlus 7T Pro 4085 mAh | Google Pixel 4 2800 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | -59% | -5% | -129% | -34% | -31% | -28% | |
Idle Minimum * | 0.6 | 0.56 7% | 0.6 -0% | 2.1 -250% | 1.01 -68% | 0.939 ? -57% | 0.897 ? -50% |
Idle Average * | 0.9 | 2.99 -232% | 1.2 -33% | 3 -233% | 1.63 -81% | 1.506 ? -67% | 1.447 ? -61% |
Idle Maximum * | 1.4 | 3.02 -116% | 1.4 -0% | 3.5 -150% | 1.69 -21% | 1.799 ? -29% | 1.628 ? -16% |
Load Average * | 4.5 | 4.17 7% | 5 -11% | 5.3 -18% | 4.67 -4% | 4.61 ? -2% | 5.5 ? -22% |
Load Maximum * | 9 | 5.44 40% | 7.1 21% | 8.3 8% | 8.78 2% | 9.04 ? -0% | 8.16 ? 9% |
* ... smaller is better
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G 4500 mAh | Apple iPhone 11 3110 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A80 3700 mAh | OnePlus 7T Pro 4085 mAh | Google Pixel 4 2800 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | 7% | -21% | -5% | -45% | |
Reader / Idle | 2156 | 2765 28% | 1796 -17% | 2015 -7% | 1007 -53% |
H.264 | 987 | 1147 16% | 902 -9% | 957 -3% | 617 -37% |
WiFi v1.3 | 946 | 866 -8% | 713 -25% | 912 -4% | 460 -51% |
Load | 298 | 267 -10% | 200 -33% | 283 -5% | 185 -38% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto - Bom Smartphone para fanáticos do 5G
Atualmente, os usuários que desejam 5G a um bom preço precisam abrir mão de certos recursos. Este parece ser o principal insight da nossa análise do Samsung Galaxy A90 5G . Por outro lado, o dispositivo também oferece algumas vantagens em relação a outros smartphones de última geração, como uma duração de bateria particularmente longa, embora ainda não tenhamos sido capazes de determinar o impacto do módulo 5G a esse respeito e um leitor de cartão microSD.
Assim, o valor do Samsung A90 5G depende fortemente das preferências gerais de um usuário: A câmera, o alto-falante, a configuração da memória e o desempenho são medíocres para essa faixa de preço e detalhes ausentes como HDR, certificação IP ou carregamento sem fio, também podem deixar alguns usuários insatisfeitos.
O Samsung Galaxy A90 5G é um smartphone 5G sólido com um conjunto de recursos ligeiramente reduzido.
No entanto, o Galaxy A90 5G é uma das maneiras mais baratas de aproveitar as redes 5G, além de usar as importações chinesas. Como o smartphone causa uma boa impressão geral e até oferece algumas vantagens exclusivas, podemos recomendá-lo aos fanáticos do 5G preocupados com o preço.
Samsung Galaxy A90 5G
-
09/03/2022 v7
Florian Schmitt