Notebookcheck

Breve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus (2018)

Manuel Masiero, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, Felicitas Krohn (traduzido por Ricardo Soto), 12/28/2018

6-inch bargain. Se você estiver procurando por um smartphone econômico com uma grande tela, funcionalidade dual SIM e LTE, então você não precisa procurar mais do que o Galaxy J4 Plus (2018). O dispositivo é bem projetado, oferece desempenho sólido e é idêntico, com exceção de alguns detalhes, ao mais caro Galaxy J6 Plus.

Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018 (Galaxy J Serie)
Placa gráfica
Qualcomm Adreno 308
Memória
2048 MB 
Pantalha
6 polegadas 18.5:9, 1480 x 720 pixel 274 PPI, Capacitiva, 16 milhões de cores, IPS, Brilhante: sim
Disco rígido
32 GB eMMC Flash, 32 GB 
, 24.2 GB livre
Conexões
1 USB 2.0, Conexões Audio: Conector para fones de 3,5 mm, Card Reader: Cartões microSD de até 512 GB, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensores: Acelerômetro, Sensor de Proximidade, USB-OTG, Samsung Smart Switch, Wi-Fi Direct
Funcionamento em rede
802.11 b/g/n (b/g/n), Bluetooth 4.2, GSM: 850, 900, 1,800, 1,900 MHz. UMTS: 850, 900, 1,900, 2,100 MHz. LTE Cat. 4: Bands 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 38, 40, 41. Dual-Nano SIM: up to 150 Mbps download speeds. SAR values: Head - 0.315 W/kg, Body – 1.463 W/kg, Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Tamanho
altura x largura x profundidade (em mm): 7.9 x 161.4 x 76.9
Bateria
3300 mAh Lítio-Ion, Tempo de conversação 3G (de acordo com o fabricante): 23 h
Sistema Operativo
Android 8.1 Oreo
Camera
Primary Camera: 13 MPix f/1.9, 28 mm, LED flash, Autofocus, vídeos de até 1920x1080 at 30 FPS
Secondary Camera: 5 MPix f/2.2, flash, vídeos de até 1920x1080 at 30 FPS
Características adicionais
Alto falantes: Um só alto-falante no lado direito do dispositivo, Teclado: virtual, Google apps, Samsung apps, Microsoft apps, 24 Meses Garantia, fanless
peso
178 g, Suprimento de energia: 30 g
Preço
189 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Size Comparison

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
BQ Aquaris C
Adreno 308, 425, 16 GB eMMC Flash
268 (min: 247, max: 276) MBit/s ∼100% +457%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=318)
215 MBit/s ∼80% +347%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762, 32 GB eMMC Flash
62.1 (min: 30, max: 62) MBit/s ∼23% +29%
Huawei Y6 2018
Adreno 308, 425, 16 GB eMMC Flash
50.5 MBit/s ∼19% +5%
Nokia 2.1
Adreno 308, 425, 8 GB eMMC Flash
48.7 (min: 29, max: 54) MBit/s ∼18% +1%
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
Adreno 308, 425, 32 GB eMMC Flash
48.1 (min: 23, max: 55) MBit/s ∼18%
LG K11
Mali-T860 MP2, MT6750, 16 GB eMMC Flash
46.1 MBit/s ∼17% -4%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
Adreno 308, 425, 32 GB eMMC Flash
43.2 (min: 36, max: 52) MBit/s ∼16% -10%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
BQ Aquaris C
Adreno 308, 425, 16 GB eMMC Flash
216 (min: 189, max: 218) MBit/s ∼100% +468%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=318)
210 MBit/s ∼97% +453%
LG K11
Mali-T860 MP2, MT6750, 16 GB eMMC Flash
58.6 MBit/s ∼27% +54%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762, 32 GB eMMC Flash
55.5 (min: 47, max: 59) MBit/s ∼26% +46%
Nokia 2.1
Adreno 308, 425, 8 GB eMMC Flash
52.7 (min: 27, max: 58) MBit/s ∼24% +39%
Huawei Y6 2018
Adreno 308, 425, 16 GB eMMC Flash
52.2 MBit/s ∼24% +37%
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
Adreno 308, 425, 32 GB eMMC Flash
38 (min: 19, max: 52) MBit/s ∼18%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
Adreno 308, 425, 32 GB eMMC Flash
35.4 (min: 23, max: 51) MBit/s ∼16% -7%
0102030405060Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø47.6 (23-55)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø39.2 (19-52)
GPS Test: Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus (2018) - Overview
GPS Test: Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus (2018) - Overview
GPS Test: Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus (2018) – Cycling around a lake
GPS Test: Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus (2018) – Cycling around a lake
GPS Test: Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus (2018) - Loop
GPS Test: Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus (2018) - Loop
GPS Test: Garmin Edge 500 - Overview
GPS Test: Garmin Edge 500 - Overview
GPS Test: Garmin Edge 500 – Cycling around a lake
GPS Test: Garmin Edge 500 – Cycling around a lake
GPS Test: Garmin Edge 500 - Loop
GPS Test: Garmin Edge 500 - Loop

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
536
cd/m²
548
cd/m²
554
cd/m²
533
cd/m²
558
cd/m²
575
cd/m²
515
cd/m²
544
cd/m²
577
cd/m²
Distribuição do brilho
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Máximo: 577 cd/m² Médio: 548.9 cd/m² Minimum: 4.6 cd/m²
iluminação: 89 %
iluminação com acumulador: 558 cd/m²
Contraste: 979:1 (Preto: 0.57 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 7 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.2
ΔE Greyscale 9.4 | 0.64-98 Ø6.4
92.2% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.15
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
IPS, 1480x720, 6
BQ Aquaris C
IPS, 1440x720, 5.45
Huawei Y6 2018
IPS, 1440x720, 5.7
LG K11
IPS, 1280x720, 5.3
Nokia 2.1
IPS, 1280x720, 5.5
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
IPS, 1440x720, 6
Xiaomi Redmi 6
IPS, 1440x720, 5.45
Screen
19%
12%
-21%
10%
1%
6%
Brightness middle
558
623
12%
483
-13%
394
-29%
338
-39%
518
-7%
373
-33%
Brightness
549
608
11%
460
-16%
385
-30%
327
-40%
481
-12%
361
-34%
Brightness Distribution
89
91
2%
88
-1%
93
4%
82
-8%
87
-2%
94
6%
Black Level *
0.57
0.61
-7%
0.4
30%
0.66
-16%
0.27
53%
0.85
-49%
0.53
7%
Contrast
979
1021
4%
1208
23%
597
-39%
1252
28%
609
-38%
704
-28%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
7
4.5
36%
5.8
17%
8.2
-17%
5.36
23%
4.47
36%
4.22
40%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
13.3
7.33
45%
12.6
5%
21.5
-62%
9.77
27%
8.04
40%
10.14
24%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
9.4
4.8
49%
5
47%
7.5
20%
6.2
34%
5.4
43%
3.3
65%
Gamma
2.15 102%
2.596 85%
2.6 85%
2.6 85%
2.345 94%
2.318 95%
2.321 95%
CCT
9626 68%
7557 86%
7709 84%
7581 86%
8460 77%
7134 91%
6862 95%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 calibrated *
4.42

* ... 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 not detected

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
25.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 7.6 ms rise
↘ 18 ms fall
The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 43 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (25.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
51.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 22.8 ms rise
↘ 28.4 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 86 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (41 ms).
Geekbench 4.1/4.2
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
1413 Points ∼31%
BQ Aquaris C
1218 Points ∼27% -14%
Huawei Y6 2018
1419 Points ∼31% 0%
LG K11
1559 Points ∼34% +10%
Nokia 2.1
1405 Points ∼31% -1%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
1380 Points ∼30% -2%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
2799 Points ∼62% +98%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (1113 - 1460, n=12)
1340 Points ∼29% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (5759 - 21070, n=208)
4548 Points ∼100% +222%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
1816 Points ∼42%
BQ Aquaris C
1769 Points ∼41% -3%
Huawei Y6 2018
1939 Points ∼45% +7%
LG K11
2259 Points ∼52% +24%
Nokia 2.1
1602 Points ∼37% -12%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
883 Points ∼20% -51%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
3660 Points ∼84% +102%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (883 - 1939, n=14)
1766 Points ∼41% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (9852 - 11598, n=258)
4348 Points ∼100% +139%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
652 Points ∼51%
BQ Aquaris C
647 Points ∼50% -1%
Huawei Y6 2018
692 Points ∼54% +6%
LG K11
609 Points ∼48% -7%
Nokia 2.1
636 Points ∼50% -2%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
541 Points ∼42% -17%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
824 Points ∼64% +26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (541 - 692, n=14)
656 Points ∼51% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (0 - 4824, n=259)
1282 Points ∼100% +97%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
3214 Points ∼67%
BQ Aquaris C
3281 Points ∼68% +2%
Huawei Y6 2018
3629 Points ∼76% +13%
LG K11
3249 Points ∼68% +1%
Nokia 2.1
3146 Points ∼66% -2%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
2829 Points ∼59% -12%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
4801 Points ∼100% +49%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (2829 - 3629, n=14)
3279 Points ∼68% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (3146 - 9868, n=266)
4614 Points ∼96% +44%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
4009 Points ∼65%
BQ Aquaris C
4058 Points ∼65% +1%
Huawei Y6 2018
4756 Points ∼77% +19%
LG K11
4241 Points ∼68% +6%
Nokia 2.1
Points ∼0% -100%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
3681 Points ∼59% -8%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
6200 Points ∼100% +55%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (4009 - 4813, n=14)
4077 Points ∼66% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (4009 - 13531, n=434)
5020 Points ∼81% +25%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
Points ∼0%
Huawei Y6 2018
Points ∼0%
LG K11
1121 Points ∼65%
Nokia 2.1
Points ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
955 Points ∼55%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (0 - 0, n=5)
0 Points ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (1674 - 4439, n=286)
1729 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
Points ∼0%
Huawei Y6 2018
Points ∼0%
LG K11
248 Points ∼17%
Nokia 2.1
Points ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
376 Points ∼25%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (0 - 0, n=5)
0 Points ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (380 - 8206, n=286)
1499 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
Points ∼0%
Huawei Y6 2018
Points ∼0%
LG K11
300 Points ∼22%
Nokia 2.1
Points ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
435 Points ∼31%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (0 - 0, n=6)
0 Points ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (459 - 5200, n=289)
1391 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
887 Points ∼52%
BQ Aquaris C
861 Points ∼50% -3%
Huawei Y6 2018
902 Points ∼53% +2%
LG K11
1207 Points ∼71% +36%
Nokia 2.1
885 Points ∼52% 0%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
375 Points ∼22% -58%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
971 Points ∼57% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (375 - 911, n=13)
831 Points ∼49% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (375 - 4493, n=303)
1706 Points ∼100% +92%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
246 Points ∼12%
BQ Aquaris C
247 Points ∼12% 0%
Huawei Y6 2018
250 Points ∼12% +2%
LG K11
384 Points ∼18% +56%
Nokia 2.1
250 Points ∼12% +2%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
248 Points ∼12% +1%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
647 Points ∼31% +163%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (118 - 250, n=13)
238 Points ∼11% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (131 - 14951, n=303)
2084 Points ∼100% +747%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
293 Points ∼17%
BQ Aquaris C
294 Points ∼17% 0%
Huawei Y6 2018
298 Points ∼17% +2%
LG K11
453 Points ∼26% +55%
Nokia 2.1
297 Points ∼17% +1%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
268 Points ∼15% -9%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
699 Points ∼40% +139%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (145 - 298, n=13)
282 Points ∼16% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (159 - 7856, n=304)
1750 Points ∼100% +497%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
Points ∼0%
Huawei Y6 2018
Points ∼0%
LG K11
1233 Points ∼74%
Nokia 2.1
Points ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
1023 Points ∼62%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (0 - 0, n=5)
0 Points ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (1580 - 4216, n=361)
1663 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
Points ∼0%
Huawei Y6 2018
Points ∼0%
LG K11
252 Points ∼21%
Nokia 2.1
Points ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
309 Points ∼25%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (0 - 0, n=5)
0 Points ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 5246, n=361)
1213 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
Points ∼0%
Huawei Y6 2018
Points ∼0%
LG K11
306 Points ∼26%
Nokia 2.1
Points ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
366 Points ∼32%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (0 - 0, n=6)
0 Points ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (445 - 4734, n=369)
1160 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
890 Points ∼57%
BQ Aquaris C
845 Points ∼54% -5%
Huawei Y6 2018
907 Points ∼58% +2%
LG K11
1127 Points ∼72% +27%
Nokia 2.1
892 Points ∼57% 0%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
851 Points ∼54% -4%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
1050 Points ∼67% +18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (622 - 907, n=14)
864 Points ∼55% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (532 - 4215, n=395)
1563 Points ∼100% +76%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
55 Points ∼3%
BQ Aquaris C
55 Points ∼3% 0%
Huawei Y6 2018
55 Points ∼3% 0%
LG K11
381 Points ∼23% +593%
Nokia 2.1
46 Points ∼3% -16%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
55 Points ∼3% 0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
523 Points ∼32% +851%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (31 - 55, n=14)
47.2 Points ∼3% -14%
Average of class Smartphone (46 - 8312, n=395)
1652 Points ∼100% +2904%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
69 Points ∼5%
BQ Aquaris C
69 Points ∼5% 0%
Huawei Y6 2018
70 Points ∼5% +1%
LG K11
447 Points ∼32% +548%
Nokia 2.1
58 Points ∼4% -16%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
69 Points ∼5% 0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
589 Points ∼42% +754%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (39 - 70, n=14)
59.7 Points ∼4% -13%
Average of class Smartphone (58 - 6454, n=403)
1407 Points ∼100% +1939%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
10151 Points ∼78%
BQ Aquaris C
10105 Points ∼78% 0%
Huawei Y6 2018
10344 Points ∼80% +2%
LG K11
10285 Points ∼79% +1%
Nokia 2.1
10427 Points ∼80% +3%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
3958 Points ∼30% -61%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
11048 Points ∼85% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (3958 - 10714, n=14)
9677 Points ∼75% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (3958 - 37475, n=550)
12988 Points ∼100% +28%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
5340 Points ∼29%
BQ Aquaris C
5434 Points ∼30% +2%
Huawei Y6 2018
5426 Points ∼30% +2%
LG K11
8177 Points ∼45% +53%
Nokia 2.1
5487 Points ∼30% +3%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
5480 Points ∼30% +3%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
9536 Points ∼52% +79%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (2546 - 5547, n=14)
5258 Points ∼29% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (2465 - 162695, n=550)
18258 Points ∼100% +242%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
5969 Points ∼39%
BQ Aquaris C
6056 Points ∼40% +1%
Huawei Y6 2018
6067 Points ∼40% +2%
LG K11
8567 Points ∼56% +44%
Nokia 2.1
6133 Points ∼40% +3%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
5049 Points ∼33% -15%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
9835 Points ∼64% +65%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (2951 - 6186, n=14)
5809 Points ∼38% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (2915 - 77599, n=551)
15329 Points ∼100% +157%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
7.6 fps ∼24%
BQ Aquaris C
7.6 fps ∼24% 0%
Huawei Y6 2018
7.7 fps ∼24% +1%
LG K11
13 fps ∼41% +71%
Nokia 2.1
7.6 fps ∼24% 0%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
7.7 fps ∼24% +1%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
19 fps ∼60% +150%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (3.4 - 7.8, n=14)
7.36 fps ∼23% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 251, n=575)
31.9 fps ∼100% +320%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
13 fps ∼50%
BQ Aquaris C
13 fps ∼50% 0%
Huawei Y6 2018
14 fps ∼54% +8%
LG K11
22 fps ∼85% +69%
Nokia 2.1
14 fps ∼54% +8%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
13 fps ∼50% 0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
26 fps ∼100% +100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (6.4 - 14, n=14)
13 fps ∼50% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (6.9 - 120, n=578)
25.2 fps ∼97% +94%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
2.8 fps ∼16%
BQ Aquaris C
2.8 fps ∼16% 0%
Huawei Y6 2018
2.8 fps ∼16% 0%
LG K11
5.3 fps ∼31% +89%
Nokia 2.1
2.7 fps ∼16% -4%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
2.8 fps ∼16% 0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
9.4 fps ∼55% +236%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (1.3 - 2.8, n=14)
2.68 fps ∼16% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 132, n=497)
17.2 fps ∼100% +514%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
5.5 fps ∼32%
BQ Aquaris C
5.6 fps ∼33% +2%
Huawei Y6 2018
5.9 fps ∼35% +7%
LG K11
11 fps ∼65% +100%
Nokia 2.1
6.1 fps ∼36% +11%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
5.6 fps ∼33% +2%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
17 fps ∼100% +209%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (3.7 - 6.4, n=14)
5.64 fps ∼33% +3%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 115, n=500)
16.3 fps ∼96% +196%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
fps ∼0%
Huawei Y6 2018
fps ∼0%
LG K11
3.5 fps ∼24%
Nokia 2.1
fps ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
4.6 fps ∼31%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (0 - 0, n=4)
0 fps ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (9.6 - 88, n=358)
14.8 fps ∼100%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
fps ∼0%
Huawei Y6 2018
fps ∼0%
LG K11
8.6 fps ∼61%
Nokia 2.1
fps ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
11 fps ∼77%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (0 - 0, n=4)
0 fps ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (6.6 - 110, n=361)
14.2 fps ∼100%
GFXBench
High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 2.1
fps ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
4.3 fps ∼41%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917)
0 fps ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (3 - 59, n=70)
10.4 fps ∼100%
2560x1440 High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 2.1
fps ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
1.4 fps ∼21%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917)
0 fps ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (1.4 - 31, n=70)
6.8 fps ∼100%
Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 2.1
fps ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
6.8 fps ∼45%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917)
0 fps ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (5.7 - 59, n=70)
15.1 fps ∼100%
1920x1080 Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 2.1
fps ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
3.5 fps ∼21%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917)
0 fps ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (3.8 - 63, n=69)
16.3 fps ∼100%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
fps ∼0%
Huawei Y6 2018
fps ∼0%
LG K11
1.9 fps ∼19%
Nokia 2.1
fps ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
2.1 fps ∼21%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (0 - 0, n=4)
0 fps ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (3.8 - 54, n=289)
10.1 fps ∼100%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
fps ∼0%
Huawei Y6 2018
fps ∼0%
LG K11
4.3 fps ∼47%
Nokia 2.1
fps ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
4.8 fps ∼53%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (0 - 0, n=4)
0 fps ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 58, n=292)
9.12 fps ∼100%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
42138 Points ∼35%
BQ Aquaris C
43307 Points ∼36% +3%
Huawei Y6 2018
46710 Points ∼39% +11%
LG K11
Points ∼0% -100%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
46450 Points ∼38% +10%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
75706 Points ∼63% +80%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (32557 - 46710, n=9)
43145 Points ∼36% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (17073 - 348178, n=181)
120686 Points ∼100% +186%
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
37022 Points ∼48%
BQ Aquaris C
36719 Points ∼47% -1%
Huawei Y6 2018
39089 Points ∼50% +6%
LG K11
39898 Points ∼51% +8%
Nokia 2.1
37484 Points ∼48% +1%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
39106 Points ∼50% +6%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
57169 Points ∼74% +54%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (30924 - 39106, n=14)
36785 Points ∼47% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (23275 - 254229, n=401)
77580 Points ∼100% +110%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
636 Points ∼90%
BQ Aquaris C
10 Points ∼1% -98%
Huawei Y6 2018
616 Points ∼88% -3%
LG K11
679 Points ∼96% +7%
Nokia 2.1
649 Points ∼92% +2%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
664 Points ∼94% +4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (10 - 802, n=14)
641 Points ∼91% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1731, n=510)
704 Points ∼100% +11%
Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
430 Points ∼24%
BQ Aquaris C
434 Points ∼25% +1%
Huawei Y6 2018
443 Points ∼25% +3%
LG K11
487 Points ∼28% +13%
Nokia 2.1
428 Points ∼24% 0%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
433 Points ∼25% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (428 - 447, n=14)
438 Points ∼25% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 15969, n=510)
1765 Points ∼100% +310%
Memory (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
647 Points ∼51%
BQ Aquaris C
457 Points ∼36% -29%
Huawei Y6 2018
1069 Points ∼84% +65%
LG K11
728 Points ∼57% +13%
Nokia 2.1
502 Points ∼39% -22%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
794 Points ∼62% +23%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (367 - 1372, n=14)
717 Points ∼56% +11%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 6283, n=510)
1276 Points ∼100% +97%
System (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
1220 Points ∼48%
BQ Aquaris C
1187 Points ∼46% -3%
Huawei Y6 2018
1043 Points ∼41% -15%
LG K11
1599 Points ∼62% +31%
Nokia 2.1
1228 Points ∼48% +1%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
1245 Points ∼49% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (1043 - 1477, n=14)
1283 Points ∼50% +5%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 12202, n=510)
2561 Points ∼100% +110%
Overall (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
682 Points ∼53%
BQ Aquaris C
219 Points ∼17% -68%
Huawei Y6 2018
743 Points ∼58% +9%
LG K11
787 Points ∼62% +15%
Nokia 2.1
643 Points ∼50% -6%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
730 Points ∼57% +7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (219 - 891, n=14)
667 Points ∼52% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (150 - 6097, n=514)
1279 Points ∼100% +88%

Legend

 
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018 Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Qualcomm Adreno 308, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
BQ Aquaris C Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Qualcomm Adreno 308, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Huawei Y6 2018 Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Qualcomm Adreno 308, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
LG K11 Mediatek MT6750, ARM Mali-T860 MP2, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Nokia 2.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Qualcomm Adreno 308, 8 GB eMMC Flash
 
Motorola Moto E5 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Qualcomm Adreno 308, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
Xiaomi Redmi 6 Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 32 GB eMMC Flash
JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 273, n=433)
37.1 Points ∼100% +105%
Xiaomi Redmi 6 (Chrome 70)
22.736 Points ∼61% +26%
Huawei Y6 2018 (Chrome 66)
18.55 Points ∼50% +3%
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018 (Chrome 71.0.3578.98)
18.055 Points ∼49%
BQ Aquaris C (Chrome 70)
17.914 Points ∼48% -1%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus (Chrome 70)
17.765 Points ∼48% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (15.9 - 18.7, n=13)
17.7 Points ∼48% -2%
LG K11 (Chrome 67)
16.634 Points ∼45% -8%
Nokia 2.1 (Chrome 70)
15.853 Points ∼43% -12%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 43280, n=569)
5661 Points ∼100% +82%
Xiaomi Redmi 6 (Chrome 70)
4257 Points ∼75% +37%
LG K11 (Chrome 67)
3397 Points ∼60% +9%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus (Chrome 70)
3250 Points ∼57% +4%
BQ Aquaris C (Chrome 70)
3160 Points ∼56% +1%
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018 (Chrome 71.0.3578.98)
3114 Points ∼55%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (2503 - 3289, n=14)
2999 Points ∼53% -4%
Huawei Y6 2018 (Chrome 66)
2582 Points ∼46% -17%
Nokia 2.1 (Chrome 70)
2503 Points ∼44% -20%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Huawei Y6 2018 (Chrome 66)
16192.4 ms * ∼100% -25%
LG K11 (Chrome 67)
14149.5 ms * ∼87% -9%
Nokia 2.1 (Chrome 70)
13821 ms * ∼85% -7%
BQ Aquaris C (Chrome 70)
13253 ms * ∼82% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (10742 - 16192, n=14)
13014 ms * ∼80% -1%
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018 (Chrome 71.0.3578.98)
12935.3 ms * ∼80%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus (Chrome 70)
12723 ms * ∼79% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (603 - 59466, n=589)
11383 ms * ∼70% +12%
Xiaomi Redmi 6 (Chrome 70)
10846 ms * ∼67% +16%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Average of class Smartphone (25 - 161, n=69)
63.7 Points ∼100% +145%
Xiaomi Redmi 6 (Chrome 70)
29 Points ∼46% +12%
Huawei Y6 2018 (Chrome 66)
28 Points ∼44% +8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (26 - 28, n=3)
27 Points ∼42% +4%
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018 (Chrome 71.0.3578.98)
26 Points ∼41%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
Average of class Smartphone (77 - 362, n=290)
113 Points ∼100% +47%
Xiaomi Redmi 6 (Chrome 70)
91 Points ∼81% +18%
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018 (Chrome 71.0.3578.98)
77 Points ∼68%
Huawei Y6 2018 (Chrome 66)
71 Points ∼63% -8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (62 - 79, n=6)
70 Points ∼62% -9%

* ... smaller is better

Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018BQ Aquaris CHuawei Y6 2018LG K11Nokia 2.1Motorola Moto E5 PlusXiaomi Redmi 6Average 32 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-17%
-14%
-11%
-7%
63%
35%
-8%
-12%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
62.35 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
59.18 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-5%
64 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
3%
61.11 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-2%
61.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-1%
60.68 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-3%
64.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
3%
47.5 (3.4 - 87.1, n=114)
-24%
46.3 (3.4 - 87.1, n=330)
-26%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
76.65 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
83.02 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
8%
84.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
11%
82.81 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
8%
79.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
4%
83.87 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
9%
82.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
8%
66.4 (8.2 - 96.5, n=114)
-13%
64.4 (8.2 - 96.5, n=330)
-16%
Random Write 4KB
13.33
9.8
-26%
9
-32%
13.16
-1%
13.45
1%
56.14
321%
36.3
172%
18.9 (0.75 - 77.3, n=154)
42%
17 (0.14 - 250, n=618)
28%
Random Read 4KB
48.42
39.1
-19%
38.8
-20%
45.8
-5%
50.46
4%
62.71
30%
52.5
8%
36.7 (3.59 - 117, n=154)
-24%
39.3 (1.59 - 173, n=618)
-19%
Sequential Write 256KB
99.58
45.7
-54%
65.6
-34%
48.32
-51%
51.18
-49%
137.89
38%
118.4
19%
94.8 (14.8 - 189, n=154)
-5%
81.3 (2.99 - 253, n=618)
-18%
Sequential Read 256KB
292.15
275.9
-6%
254.3
-13%
252.96
-13%
288.26
-1%
248.49
-15%
287
-2%
230 (25.8 - 440, n=154)
-21%
235 (12.1 - 912, n=618)
-20%
Dead Trigger 2
010203040Tooltip
; 1.5.2: Ø29.9 (9-31)
Shadow Fight 3
010203040Tooltip
; 1.15.0: Ø27.4 (1-38)
Carga Máxima
 29 °C28.7 °C31.9 °C 
 30 °C30.8 °C31.5 °C 
 29.6 °C31 °C31.3 °C 
Máximo: 31.9 °C
Médio: 30.4 °C
28.8 °C29.5 °C29.6 °C
29.1 °C30.4 °C29.6 °C
29 °C30.6 °C32.2 °C
Máximo: 32.2 °C
Médio: 29.9 °C
alimentação elétrica  31.2 °C | Temperatura do quarto 22 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 30.4 °C / 87 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 31.9 °C / 89 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 32.2 °C / 90 F, compared to the average of 34.2 °C / 94 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.1 °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 Highs2032.835.12524.324.43118.6264024.3265033.837.26321.222.98024.822.110018.51812516.416.816017.126.620017.933.325016.842.431514.949.540015.153.750014.259.863013.964.180014.868100014.269.6125014.773.6160014.473200014.367.825001470.1315013.876400014.877.4500014.471.463001568.2800014.771.81000014.865.31250014.856.91600014.747.6SPL26.784.2N0.855.9median 14.8median 65.3Delta0.613.135.536.334.936.539.538.238.639.53945.32833.829.728.628.526.624.72823.734.522.546.52150.620.857.219.965.520.1671966.418.570.119.270.41975.918.176.31875.117.477.117.677.817.879.11881.51876.11874.61875.918731858.673.164.469.464.130.688.531.416.525.917.21.573.6median 18.5median 70.4210.9hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseSamsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018BQ Aquaris C
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 34.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.5% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.2% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (8.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (27.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 67% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 24% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 80% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 15% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

BQ Aquaris C audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 29.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.6% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 31% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 58% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 59% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 34% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Consumo de energia
desligadodarklight 0.01 / 0.16 Watt
Ociosodarkmidlight 0.68 / 1.78 / 1.82 Watt
Carga midlight 4.44 / 6.13 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
3300 mAh
BQ Aquaris C
3000 mAh
Huawei Y6 2018
3000 mAh
LG K11
3000 mAh
Nokia 2.1
4000 mAh
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
5000 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi 6
3000 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917)
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-5%
-59%
9%
15%
4%
17%
-25%
-4%
Idle Minimum *
0.68
0.7
-3%
1.7
-150%
0.57
16%
0.7
-3%
0.9
-32%
0.6
12%
1.134 (0.54 - 4.02, n=14)
-67%
0.878 (0.2 - 3.4, n=651)
-29%
Idle Average *
1.78
1.9
-7%
2.5
-40%
1.48
17%
1.2
33%
1.5
16%
1.3
27%
2.28 (1.2 - 6, n=14)
-28%
1.722 (0.6 - 6.2, n=650)
3%
Idle Maximum *
1.82
2.5
-37%
3.2
-76%
1.54
15%
1.9
-4%
2
-10%
2.1
-15%
2.64 (1.62 - 6.64, n=14)
-45%
1.997 (0.74 - 6.6, n=651)
-10%
Load Average *
4.44
4.1
8%
5.2
-17%
4.56
-3%
3.2
28%
3.2
28%
3
32%
4.31 (2.9 - 9.6, n=14)
3%
4.04 (0.8 - 10.8, n=645)
9%
Load Maximum *
6.13
5.2
15%
6.8
-11%
6.16
-0%
4.8
22%
4.9
20%
4.4
28%
5.51 (4.3 - 7.34, n=14)
10%
5.78 (1.2 - 14.2, n=645)
6%

* ... smaller is better

Tempo de Execução da Bateria
Ocioso (sem WLAN, min brilho)
28h 50min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
11h 47min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
13h 58min
Carga (máximo brilho)
6h 38min
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
3300 mAh
BQ Aquaris C
3000 mAh
Huawei Y6 2018
3000 mAh
LG K11
3000 mAh
Nokia 2.1
4000 mAh
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
5000 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi 6
3000 mAh
Battery Runtime
-18%
-20%
5%
14%
52%
-18%
Reader / Idle
1730
1329
-23%
1425
-18%
H.264
838
702
-16%
752
-10%
WiFi v1.3
707
583
-18%
643
-9%
741
5%
809
14%
1078
52%
695
-2%
Load
398
279
-30%
238
-40%

Pro

+ Tela de 6-polegadas
+ Dual SIM
+ LTE e NFC
+ GPS preciso
+ Android 8.1 Oreo
+ Câmera traseira decente de 13 MP
+ Desbloqueio facial
+ Tela IPS brilhante
+ Longa duração da bateria

Contra

- Apenas uma porta USB 2.0
- Sem leitor de digitais
- Wi-Fi fraco
- O desempenho em jogos é limitado
- Sem carga rápida
The Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus (2018) smartphone review. Test device courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de.
The Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus (2018) smartphone review. Test device courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de.

O Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus (2018) é um impressionante smartphone econômico. Sua tela de 6 polegadas e design elegante fazem o dispositivo parecer mais caro do que é, enquanto sua funcionalidade dual-SIM, tela IPS brilhante, bateria de longa duração e SO Android 8.1 Oreo são impressionantes para um dispositivo tão barato.

O Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus (2018) é um excelente smartphone de nível de entrada com um excelente valor pelo dinheiro.

O antigo SoC Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 ainda se sai surpreendentemente bem em 2018, mas não pode rodar jogos complexos como o Asphalt 9: Legends. A lista de outras desvantagens é agradavelmente curta. Gostaríamos de ver um sensor de digitais e uma porta USB Type-C, mas, infelizmente, a Samsung os reserva para seus dispositivos mais caros. A falta de uma porta USB Type-C também significa que não há funcionalidade de carregamento rápido, e o dispositivo só pode se conectar a redes Wi-Fi de 2,4 GHz; nosso dispositivo de teste se desempenhou abaixo do esperado em nossos testes de Wi-Fi também.

No geral, o Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus (2018) é uma boa opção para quem está à procura de um smartphone com uma grande tela. O dispositivo também não pareceria fora do lugar ao lado de seus irmãos mais caros Galaxy A e S, o que é uma prova de quão bem projetado é o Galaxy J4 Plus (2018).

Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018 - 12/20/2018 v6
Manuel Masiero

Acabamento
81%
Teclado
67 / 75 → 89%
Mouse
82%
Conectividade
38 / 60 → 63%
Peso
90%
Bateria
95%
Pantalha
82%
Desempenho do jogos
7 / 63 → 10%
Desempenho da aplicação
38 / 70 → 54%
Temperatura
94%
Ruído
100%
Audio
65 / 91 → 71%
Camera
66%
Médio
70%
79%
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 J4 Plus (2018)
Manuel Masiero, 2018-12-28 (Update: 2019-01- 2)