Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarBreve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy M31 – Médio com alguns destaques
Comparison Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 79.8 % | 07/2020 | Samsung Galaxy M31 Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3 | 191 g | 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.40" | 2340x1080 | |
| 78.8 % | 06/2020 | Samsung Galaxy A41 Helio P65, Mali-G52 MP2 | 152 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.10" | 2400x1080 | |
| 82.9 % | 06/2020 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro SD 720G, Adreno 618 | 209 g | 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
| 79.6 % | 06/2020 | Realme 6 Pro SD 720G, Adreno 618 | 195 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.60" | 2400x1080 | |
| 79 % | 02/2020 | Huawei P30 Lite New Edition Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4 | 159 g | 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.15" | 2312x1080 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 97 %
iluminação com acumulador: 622 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.25 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 2.7 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
142% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.019
| Samsung Galaxy M31 Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.40 | Samsung Galaxy A41 Super AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.10 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro IPS, 2400x1080, 6.67 | Realme 6 Pro IPS, 2400x1080, 6.60 | Huawei P30 Lite New Edition IPS, 2312x1080, 6.15 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 1% | 11% | -69% | -48% | |
| Brightness middle | 622 | 554 -11% | 610 -2% | 442 -29% | 507 -18% |
| Brightness | 615 | 559 -9% | 579 -6% | 419 -32% | 481 -22% |
| Brightness Distribution | 97 | 92 -5% | 92 -5% | 90 -7% | 88 -9% |
| Black Level * | 0.37 | 0.37 | 0.38 | ||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 2.25 | 2 11% | 1.8 20% | 6.1 -171% | 4.72 -110% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 6.22 | 7.7 -24% | 3 52% | 9.7 -56% | 7.84 -26% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.7 | 1.6 41% | 2.5 7% | 5.9 -119% | 5.5 -104% |
| Gamma | 2.019 109% | 2.11 104% | 2.31 95% | 2.35 94% | 2.158 102% |
| CCT | 6810 95% | 6589 99% | 6864 95% | 7631 85% | 7596 86% |
| Contrast | 1649 | 1195 | 1334 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 208 Hz |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 208 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 208 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17900 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 3 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 5 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 17 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21.5 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 9 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 6 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 3 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 17 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms). | ||
| AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
| Realme 6 Pro | |
| Huawei P30 Lite New Edition | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (152185 - 187087, n=7) | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 351, n=173, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 (Chrome 83.0.4103.101) | |
| Huawei P30 Lite New Edition (Chrome 79) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (27.5 - 30.6, n=7) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 (Chrome 83) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
| Realme 6 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 (Chrome 83.0.4103.101) | |
| Huawei P30 Lite New Edition (Chrome 79) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (47.5 - 51.9, n=7) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 (Chrome 83) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (14.9 - 445, n=157, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
| Huawei P30 Lite New Edition (Chrome 79) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 (Chome 83) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (26.6 - 30.5, n=7) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 (Chrome 83.0.4103.101) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (39 - 304, n=122, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
| Realme 6 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 (Chrome 83) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (46 - 57, n=7) | |
| Huawei P30 Lite New Edition (Chrome 79) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 (Chrome 83.0.4103.101) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 89112, n=212, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
| Realme 6 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 (Chrome 83.0.4103.101) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 (Chrome 83) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (7442 - 10687, n=7) | |
| Huawei P30 Lite New Edition (Chrome 79) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (4332 - 6212, n=7) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 (Chrome 83) | |
| Huawei P30 Lite New Edition (Chrome 79) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 (Chrome 83.0.4103.101) | |
| Realme 6 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (388 - 9999, n=173, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy M31 | Samsung Galaxy A41 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | Realme 6 Pro | Huawei P30 Lite New Edition | Average 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -18% | -10% | 7% | 37% | -14% | 195% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 489.5 | 299.9 -39% | 498.1 2% | 513 5% | 800 63% | 512 ? 5% | 1502 ? 207% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 221.7 | 211.1 -5% | 171.1 -23% | 203.3 -8% | 391.1 76% | 180.8 ? -18% | 1111 ? 401% |
| Random Read 4KB | 128.9 | 84 -35% | 122.6 -5% | 158.7 23% | 198.7 54% | 114.2 ? -11% | 247 ? 92% |
| Random Write 4KB | 152.4 | 72.5 -52% | 112.9 -26% | 154 1% | 171.6 13% | 80.1 ? -47% | 271 ? 78% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 74.5 ? | 83 ? 11% | 76.7 ? 3% | 86.4 ? 16% | 76.6 ? 3% | 73.4 ? -1% | |
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 60.8 ? | 67 ? 10% | 54.9 ? -10% | 63.4 ? 4% | 66.8 ? 10% | 55.4 ? -9% |
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 43.6 °C / 110 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 42.7 °C / 109 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.6 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
Samsung Galaxy M31 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 64.8% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 64.8% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 64.8% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (120.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 87% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 3% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 96% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 63.4% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 63.4% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 63.4% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (120.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 87% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 3% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 96% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0.1 / 0.2 Watt |
| Ocioso |  1.6 / 2.3 / 3.7 Watt |
| Carga |
6.7 / 9.4 Watt |
    
| |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 6000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A41 3500 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro 5020 mAh | Realme 6 Pro 4300 mAh | Huawei P30 Lite New Edition 3340 mAh | Average Samsung Exynos 9611 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 46% | 35% | 30% | 28% | 16% | 33% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 1.6 | 0.96 40% | 0.75 53% | 0.92 42% | 0.95 41% | 1.173 ? 27% | 0.897 ? 44% |
| Idle Average * | 2.3 | 1.57 32% | 2.19 5% | 1.79 22% | 2.1 9% | 2.28 ? 1% | 1.452 ? 37% |
| Idle Maximum * | 3.7 | 1.61 56% | 2.24 39% | 1.88 49% | 2.4 35% | 2.86 ? 23% | 1.629 ? 56% |
| Load Average * | 6.7 | 2.93 56% | 3.88 42% | 5.41 19% | 4.2 37% | 5.97 ? 11% | 5.55 ? 17% |
| Load Maximum * | 9.4 | 4.97 47% | 5.97 36% | 7.59 19% | 7.7 18% | 7.83 ? 17% | 8.31 ? 12% |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy M31 6000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A41 3500 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro 5020 mAh | Realme 6 Pro 4300 mAh | Huawei P30 Lite New Edition 3340 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -31% | -12% | -22% | -42% | |
| Reader / Idle | 2456 | 1843 -25% | 2336 -5% | 1359 -45% | |
| H.264 | 1432 | 998 -30% | 1096 -23% | 802 -44% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 1324 | 650 -51% | 1175 -11% | 1031 -22% | 719 -46% |
| Load | 326 | 268 -18% | 303 -7% | 223 -32% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto - Muito agradável em geral
Relativamente rápido, após o seu lançamento, o Samsung Galaxy M31 já está disponível a preços ainda mais acessíveis. Isso também o torna mais atraente, pois o smartphone se mostra bastante médio em termos de equipamento de hardware. Os destaques são a enorme bateria e a tela AMOLED que oferece uma precisão de cores relativamente boa.
Por outro lado, o armazenamento está apenas no nível de sua classe e, em termos de desempenho, o Galaxy M31 ainda permanece significativamente atrás dos concorrentes na faixa de preço do preço de varejo recomendado. Além disso, você precisa conviver com um forte afogamento sob carga, bem como com um aquecimento muito notável. O Galaxy M31 também não consegue avançar em termos de velocidade de WLAN.
Embora tecnicamente, o Galaxy M31 seja mediano em muitas áreas, convence com uma bateria de longa duração e uma boa tela.
Portanto, em muitas áreas, o smartphone Galaxy é mais um telefone comum, do que capaz de se destacar. No entanto, como sua duração de bateria é convincente, a tela é brilhante, as câmeras tiram fotos decentes e a Samsung oferece um software moderno e claramente organizado com o OneUI, que também é atualizado com segurança, o Galaxy M31 ainda é um smartphone atraente no mercado de gama média.
Samsung Galaxy M31
-
08/31/2022 v7
Florian Schmitt
Pricecompare
