Notebookcheck

Breve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy Note 9

Florian Wimmer (traduzido por Ricardo Soto), 08/28/2018

Go penning. O phablet de gama alta da Samsung vem com uma S Pen revolucionária, que pode ser usada para acionar a câmera remotamente ou trocar slides durante uma apresentação, graças às suas capacidades Bluetooth. Uma ótima tela é acompanhada por uma câmera inteligente. Se isso é suficiente ou não, para tornar o Note 9 o melhor smartphone corporativo do ano, você pode descobrir em nossa análise.

Samsung Galaxy Note 9 (Galaxy Note Serie)
Processador
Samsung Exynos 9810
Placa gráfica
ARM Mali-G72 MP18
Memória
6144 MB 
Pantalha
6.4 polegadas 18.5:9, 2960 x 1440 pixel 514 PPI, Tela táctil capacitiva, Super AMOLED, Gorilla Glass 5, HDR10, Brilhante: sim
Disco rígido
128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 128 GB 
, 109 GB livre
Conexões
1 USB 3.0, Conexões Audio: Conector de áudio de 3,5 mm, Card Reader: microSD até 256 GB, 1 Leitor de Impressões Digitais, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensores: sensor de movimento, giroscópio, sensor de proximidade, bússola, barômetro, escáner de iris, sensor de pulso, USB-OTG, ANT+,
Funcionamento em rede
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM (850/​900/​1800/​1900), UMTS (850/​900/​1800/​1900), LTE (1,2,3,4,5,7,8,12,14,18,19,20,28,29,30), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Tamanho
altura x largura x profundidade (em mm): 8.8 x 162 x 76.4
Bateria
15.2 Wh, 4000 mAh Lítio-Ion, Carregamento rápido, Qi, Powermat
Sistema Operativo
Android 8.1 Oreo
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix f/​1.5-f/​2.4, phase detection autofocus (Dual pixel), OIS, LED flash, Videos @2160p/​60fps, Videos @720p/​960fps (main camera); 12.0MP, f/​2.4, depth detection, telephoto lens (second camera)
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix f/​1.7, contrast detection autofocus, Videos @1080p/​30fps
Características adicionais
Alto falantes: Alto-falantes estéreo, Teclado: Teclado virtual, S Pen, Carregador de carga rápida, cabo USB-C, Smart Things, Samsung Health, Galaxy Apps, Galaxy Wearable, PENUP, 24 Meses Garantia, IP68 certified; LTE-A Pro Cat 18 (1200/150 Mbit/s); SAR-value: 0,381W/​kg (head), 1,509W/​kg (body), fanless
peso
201 g
Preço
999 Euro

 

Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Galaxy Note 9

Size Comparison

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
A11 Bionic GPU, A11 Bionic, Apple 256 GB (iPhone 8 / Plus)
914 MBit/s ∼100% +88%
LG G7 ThinQ
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
656 MBit/s ∼72% +35%
OnePlus 6
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
609 MBit/s ∼67% +26%
HTC U12 Plus
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
579 MBit/s ∼63% +19%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
Mali-G71 MP20, 8895 Octa, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
503 MBit/s ∼55% +4%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
485 MBit/s ∼53%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
338 MBit/s ∼37% -30%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=264)
188 MBit/s ∼21% -61%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
Mali-G71 MP20, 8895 Octa, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
653 MBit/s ∼100% +35%
LG G7 ThinQ
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
651 MBit/s ∼100% +34%
OnePlus 6
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
612 MBit/s ∼94% +26%
HTC U12 Plus
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
573 MBit/s ∼88% +18%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
485 MBit/s ∼74%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
A11 Bionic GPU, A11 Bionic, Apple 256 GB (iPhone 8 / Plus)
374 MBit/s ∼57% -23%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
225 MBit/s ∼34% -54%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=264)
184 MBit/s ∼28% -62%
GPS Samsung Galaxy Note 9 – overview
GPS Samsung Galaxy Note 9 – overview
GPS Samsung Galaxy Note 9 – grove
GPS Samsung Galaxy Note 9 – grove
GPS Samsung Galaxy Note 9 – bridge
GPS Samsung Galaxy Note 9 – bridge
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – overview
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – overview
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – grove
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – grove
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – bridge
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – bridge

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
515
cd/m²
502
cd/m²
501
cd/m²
509
cd/m²
499
cd/m²
502
cd/m²
521
cd/m²
504
cd/m²
502
cd/m²
Distribuição do brilho
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Máximo: 521 cd/m² Médio: 506.1 cd/m² Minimum: 1.67 cd/m²
iluminação: 96 %
iluminação com acumulador: 499 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.62 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.3
ΔE Greyscale 2.2 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
144.6% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.103
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.4
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5
HTC U12 Plus
Super LCD 6, 2880x1440, 6
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
OLED, 2160x1080, 6
OnePlus 6
Optic AMOLED, 2280x1080, 6.28
LG G7 ThinQ
IPS, 3120x1440, 6.1
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.3
Screen
30%
23%
29%
10%
4%
14%
Brightness middle
499
559
12%
395
-21%
629
26%
430
-14%
974
95%
530
6%
Brightness
506
538
6%
402
-21%
636
26%
437
-14%
975
93%
536
6%
Brightness Distribution
96
90
-6%
90
-6%
94
-2%
87
-9%
96
0%
93
-3%
Black Level *
0.38
0.37
0.49
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
4.62
1.3
72%
1.6
65%
1.7
63%
2.3
50%
5.4
-17%
2.6
44%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
10.91
2.7
75%
3.4
69%
3.6
67%
4.6
58%
13.1
-20%
5.1
53%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
2.2
1.8
18%
1.1
50%
2.4
-9%
2.4
-9%
5
-127%
2.7
-23%
Gamma
2.103 105%
2.25 98%
2.14 103%
2.15 102%
2.28 96%
2.31 95%
2.04 108%
CCT
6115 106%
6797 96%
6536 99%
6337 103%
6160 106%
7480 87%
6206 105%
Contrast
1471
1068
1988

* ... 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 227 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 227 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 227 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 8946 (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
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 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 3 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (25.7 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 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 4 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (41.2 ms).
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
214090 Points ∼93%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
218158 Points ∼95% +2%
HTC U12 Plus
221971 Points ∼96% +4%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
177341 Points ∼77% -17%
OnePlus 6
230421 Points ∼100% +8%
LG G7 ThinQ
223464 Points ∼97% +4%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
173997 Points ∼76% -19%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (214090 - 222290, n=3)
218110 Points ∼95% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (23275 - 232931, n=355)
71591 Points ∼31% -67%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
236552 Points ∼89%
HTC U12 Plus
255739 Points ∼96% +8%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
212278 Points ∼80% -10%
OnePlus 6
266686 Points ∼100% +13%
LG G7 ThinQ
256276 Points ∼96% +8%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
201210 Points ∼75% -15%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (236552 - 250577, n=3)
243663 Points ∼91% +3%
Average of class Smartphone (17073 - 290397, n=127)
100740 Points ∼38% -57%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
5184 Points ∼60%
HTC U12 Plus
8601 Points ∼100% +66%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
6932 Points ∼81% +34%
OnePlus 6
8282 Points ∼96% +60%
LG G7 ThinQ
7717 Points ∼90% +49%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
5096 Points ∼59% -2%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (5184 - 5319, n=3)
5265 Points ∼61% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (6293 - 8601, n=217)
4382 Points ∼51% -15%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
5960 Points ∼58%
HTC U12 Plus
10264 Points ∼100% +72%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
8439 Points ∼82% +42%
OnePlus 6
9630 Points ∼94% +62%
LG G7 ThinQ
9503 Points ∼93% +59%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
6084 Points ∼59% +2%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (5736 - 5960, n=3)
5839 Points ∼57% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (4447 - 10264, n=381)
4677 Points ∼46% -22%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
1132 Points ∼79%
HTC U12 Plus
1437 Points ∼100% +27%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
1234 Points ∼86% +9%
OnePlus 6
1386 Points ∼96% +22%
LG G7 ThinQ
1374 Points ∼96% +21%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
1235 Points ∼86% +9%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (1099 - 1132, n=3)
1113 Points ∼77% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1682, n=455)
665 Points ∼46% -41%
Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
6506 Points ∼82%
HTC U12 Plus
7945 Points ∼100% +22%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
3657 Points ∼46% -44%
OnePlus 6
7949 Points ∼100% +22%
LG G7 ThinQ
7906 Points ∼99% +22%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
6121 Points ∼77% -6%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (6370 - 6506, n=3)
6416 Points ∼81% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 9248, n=455)
1507 Points ∼19% -77%
Memory (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
2068 Points ∼50%
HTC U12 Plus
3641 Points ∼88% +76%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
4142 Points ∼100% +100%
OnePlus 6
3799 Points ∼92% +84%
LG G7 ThinQ
3744 Points ∼90% +81%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
3095 Points ∼75% +50%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (2068 - 2669, n=3)
2454 Points ∼59% +19%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 4798, n=455)
1123 Points ∼27% -46%
System (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
6137 Points ∼75%
HTC U12 Plus
7862 Points ∼96% +28%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
5244 Points ∼64% -15%
OnePlus 6
8228 Points ∼100% +34%
LG G7 ThinQ
8070 Points ∼98% +31%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
5308 Points ∼65% -14%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (6137 - 6413, n=3)
6261 Points ∼76% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 10281, n=455)
2254 Points ∼27% -63%
Overall (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
3110 Points ∼72%
HTC U12 Plus
4252 Points ∼99% +37%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
3147 Points ∼73% +1%
OnePlus 6
4308 Points ∼100% +39%
LG G7 ThinQ
4257 Points ∼99% +37%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
3338 Points ∼77% +7%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (3110 - 3302, n=3)
3232 Points ∼75% +4%
Average of class Smartphone (150 - 4308, n=459)
1130 Points ∼26% -64%
Geekbench 4.1/4.2
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
9059 Points ∼67%
HTC U12 Plus
12493 Points ∼93% +38%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
8572 Points ∼64% -5%
LG G7 ThinQ
13497 Points ∼100% +49%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
8310 Points ∼62% -8%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (6202 - 9059, n=3)
7160 Points ∼53% -21%
Average of class Smartphone (836 - 14417, n=154)
3846 Points ∼28% -58%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
8874 Points ∼84%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
10558 Points ∼100% +19%
HTC U12 Plus
8812 Points ∼83% -1%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
6792 Points ∼64% -23%
LG G7 ThinQ
9029 Points ∼86% +2%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
6744 Points ∼64% -24%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (8786 - 8963, n=3)
8874 Points ∼84% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (1099 - 10558, n=201)
3950 Points ∼37% -55%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
1698 Points ∼40%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
4263 Points ∼100% +151%
HTC U12 Plus
2429 Points ∼57% +43%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
1898 Points ∼45% +12%
LG G7 ThinQ
2448 Points ∼57% +44%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
2028 Points ∼48% +19%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (1698 - 3776, n=3)
3054 Points ∼72% +80%
Average of class Smartphone (394 - 4265, n=202)
1158 Points ∼27% -32%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
2569 Points ∼75%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
2109 Points ∼61% -18%
HTC U12 Plus
3197 Points ∼93% +24%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
2871 Points ∼84% +12%
OnePlus 6
3432 Points ∼100% +34%
LG G7 ThinQ
3255 Points ∼95% +27%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
2346 Points ∼68% -9%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (2469 - 2569, n=3)
2508 Points ∼73% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (500 - 3669, n=305)
1541 Points ∼45% -40%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
3673 Points ∼70%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
3069 Points ∼59% -16%
HTC U12 Plus
3488 Points ∼67% -5%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
2844 Points ∼55% -23%
OnePlus 6
5212 Points ∼100% +42%
LG G7 ThinQ
5006 Points ∼96% +36%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
2661 Points ∼51% -28%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (3553 - 3673, n=3)
3603 Points ∼69% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (70 - 5220, n=305)
1046 Points ∼20% -72%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
3353 Points ∼72%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
2781 Points ∼60% -17%
HTC U12 Plus
3419 Points ∼73% +2%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
2850 Points ∼61% -15%
OnePlus 6
4673 Points ∼100% +39%
LG G7 ThinQ
4471 Points ∼96% +33%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
2584 Points ∼55% -23%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (3244 - 3353, n=3)
3284 Points ∼70% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (87 - 4734, n=313)
1003 Points ∼21% -70%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
2515 Points ∼73%
HTC U12 Plus
2774 Points ∼80% +10%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
2896 Points ∼84% +15%
OnePlus 6
3452 Points ∼100% +37%
LG G7 ThinQ
3150 Points ∼91% +25%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
2342 Points ∼68% -7%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (2496 - 2600, n=3)
2537 Points ∼73% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (474 - 3642, n=336)
1446 Points ∼42% -43%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
4826 Points ∼58%
HTC U12 Plus
5637 Points ∼68% +17%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
3353 Points ∼41% -31%
OnePlus 6
8252 Points ∼100% +71%
LG G7 ThinQ
7633 Points ∼92% +58%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
3928 Points ∼48% -19%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (4569 - 4826, n=3)
4677 Points ∼57% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (107 - 8312, n=336)
1419 Points ∼17% -71%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
4008 Points ∼64%
HTC U12 Plus
4585 Points ∼73% +14%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
3239 Points ∼51% -19%
OnePlus 6
6304 Points ∼100% +57%
LG G7 ThinQ
5799 Points ∼92% +45%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
3414 Points ∼54% -15%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (3895 - 4008, n=3)
3938 Points ∼62% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (120 - 6378, n=344)
1221 Points ∼19% -70%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
18756 Points ∼55%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
25641 Points ∼75% +37%
HTC U12 Plus
33810 Points ∼99% +80%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
22629 Points ∼66% +21%
OnePlus 6
34191 Points ∼100% +82%
LG G7 ThinQ
27817 Points ∼81% +48%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
22829 Points ∼67% +22%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (18756 - 26851, n=3)
23944 Points ∼70% +28%
Average of class Smartphone (7716 - 36762, n=491)
12148 Points ∼36% -35%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
36190 Points ∼32%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
113380 Points ∼100% +213%
HTC U12 Plus
81726 Points ∼72% +126%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
34008 Points ∼30% -6%
OnePlus 6
81269 Points ∼72% +125%
LG G7 ThinQ
80534 Points ∼71% +123%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
36807 Points ∼32% +2%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (36190 - 48433, n=3)
43744 Points ∼39% +21%
Average of class Smartphone (2465 - 113380, n=491)
15581 Points ∼14% -57%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
29994 Points ∼47%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
64405 Points ∼100% +115%
HTC U12 Plus
62152 Points ∼97% +107%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
30590 Points ∼47% +2%
OnePlus 6
62241 Points ∼97% +108%
LG G7 ThinQ
56669 Points ∼88% +89%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
32399 Points ∼50% +8%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (29994 - 41093, n=3)
36944 Points ∼57% +23%
Average of class Smartphone (2915 - 64405, n=492)
13482 Points ∼21% -55%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
146 fps ∼87%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
166.9 fps ∼100% +14%
HTC U12 Plus
98 fps ∼59% -33%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
112 fps ∼67% -23%
OnePlus 6
150 fps ∼90% +3%
LG G7 ThinQ
144 fps ∼86% -1%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
105 fps ∼63% -28%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (144 - 147, n=3)
146 fps ∼87% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 177, n=519)
27.6 fps ∼17% -81%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
60 fps ∼50%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
119.4 fps ∼100% +99%
HTC U12 Plus
59 fps ∼49% -2%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
60 fps ∼50% 0%
OnePlus 6
60 fps ∼50% 0%
LG G7 ThinQ
60 fps ∼50% 0%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
59 fps ∼49% -2%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (60 - 60, n=3)
60 fps ∼50% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (6.9 - 120, n=522)
23.7 fps ∼20% -60%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
76 fps ∼100%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
71 fps ∼93% -7%
HTC U12 Plus
72 fps ∼95% -5%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
54 fps ∼71% -29%
OnePlus 6
66 fps ∼87% -13%
LG G7 ThinQ
63 fps ∼83% -17%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
51 fps ∼67% -33%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (73 - 76, n=3)
74.3 fps ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 88.2, n=442)
14.6 fps ∼19% -81%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
47 fps ∼59%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
79.2 fps ∼100% +69%
HTC U12 Plus
35 fps ∼44% -26%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
56 fps ∼71% +19%
OnePlus 6
58 fps ∼73% +23%
LG G7 ThinQ
41 fps ∼52% -13%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
38 fps ∼48% -19%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (45 - 47, n=3)
45.7 fps ∼58% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (4.4 - 115, n=444)
14.7 fps ∼19% -69%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
45 fps ∼80%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
49 fps ∼88% +9%
HTC U12 Plus
39 fps ∼70% -13%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
37 fps ∼66% -18%
OnePlus 6
56 fps ∼100% +24%
LG G7 ThinQ
51 fps ∼91% +13%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
42 fps ∼75% -7%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (45 - 47, n=3)
46 fps ∼82% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (1.3 - 60, n=306)
12.6 fps ∼23% -72%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
25 fps ∼44%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
56.4 fps ∼100% +126%
HTC U12 Plus
31 fps ∼55% +24%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
38 fps ∼67% +52%
OnePlus 6
54 fps ∼96% +116%
LG G7 ThinQ
26 fps ∼46% +4%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
23 fps ∼41% -8%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (24 - 25, n=3)
24.3 fps ∼43% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (2.6 - 110, n=308)
12.6 fps ∼22% -50%
GFXBench
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
28 fps ∼80%
HTC U12 Plus
35 fps ∼100% +25%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
21 fps ∼60% -25%
OnePlus 6
35 fps ∼100% +25%
LG G7 ThinQ
33 fps ∼94% +18%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
25 fps ∼71% -11%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (28 - 28, n=3)
28 fps ∼80% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (0.72 - 35, n=238)
8.59 fps ∼25% -69%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
15 fps ∼47%
HTC U12 Plus
20 fps ∼63% +33%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
22 fps ∼69% +47%
OnePlus 6
32 fps ∼100% +113%
LG G7 ThinQ
17 fps ∼53% +13%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
13 fps ∼41% -13%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (14 - 15, n=3)
14.3 fps ∼45% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (1.1 - 50, n=241)
7.87 fps ∼25% -48%
Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
1481 Points ∼100%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
788 Points ∼53% -47%
OnePlus 6
1169 Points ∼79% -21%
LG G7 ThinQ
1176 Points ∼79% -21%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
1295 Points ∼87% -13%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (1436 - 1481, n=3)
1466 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (36.3 - 1702, n=64)
596 Points ∼40% -60%
Basemark GPU
1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
29.4 fps ∼83%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
14.3 fps ∼41% -51%
OnePlus 6
35.26 fps ∼100% +20%
LG G7 ThinQ
30.49 (min: 9.86, max: 49.99) fps ∼86% +4%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810
29.4 fps ∼83% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (1.45 - 35.3, n=13)
15.3 fps ∼43% -48%
Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
15.51 fps ∼59%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
5.45 fps ∼21% -65%
OnePlus 6
26.15 fps ∼100% +69%
LG G7 ThinQ
17.42 (min: 10.81, max: 36.84) fps ∼67% +12%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810
15.5 fps ∼59% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (5.06 - 26.2, n=10)
13.2 fps ∼50% -15%
1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
22.84 fps ∼81%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
5.9 fps ∼21% -74%
OnePlus 6
28.35 fps ∼100% +24%
LG G7 ThinQ
28.33 (min: 16.3, max: 60.18) fps ∼100% +24%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810
22.8 fps ∼80% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (5.45 - 28.4, n=8)
18.2 fps ∼64% -20%
VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
2327 Score ∼49%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
1704 Score ∼36% -27%
OnePlus 6
4710 Score ∼100% +102%
LG G7 ThinQ
4598 Score ∼98% +98%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810
2327 Score ∼49% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (119 - 4710, n=12)
1815 Score ∼39% -22%
PassMark PerformanceTest Mobile V1
3D Graphics Tests (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
4747 Points ∼100%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
1501 Points ∼32% -68%
OnePlus 6
4195 Points ∼88% -12%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (4747 - 4777, n=2)
4762 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (373 - 4777, n=207)
1135 Points ∼24% -76%
2D Graphics Tests (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
8985 Points ∼83%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
8289 Points ∼77% -8%
OnePlus 6
10791 Points ∼100% +20%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (8620 - 8985, n=2)
8803 Points ∼82% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 12875, n=208)
3287 Points ∼30% -63%
Memory Tests (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
73460 Points ∼0%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
27570800 Points ∼100% +37432%
OnePlus 6
75243 Points ∼0% +2%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (69910 - 73460, n=2)
71685 Points ∼0% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (678 - 27570800, n=208)
386466 Points ∼1% +426%
Disk Tests (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
9916 Points ∼10%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
99202 Points ∼100% +900%
OnePlus 6
12497 Points ∼13% +26%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (9916 - 10239, n=2)
10078 Points ∼10% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (1033 - 117939, n=207)
20306 Points ∼20% +105%
CPU Tests (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
121702 Points ∼27%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
456258 Points ∼100% +275%
OnePlus 6
245734 Points ∼54% +102%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (121702 - 186922, n=2)
154312 Points ∼34% +27%
Average of class Smartphone (1140 - 456258, n=208)
55081 Points ∼12% -55%
System (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
14546 Points ∼95%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
8303 Points ∼54% -43%
OnePlus 6
15318 Points ∼100% +5%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (14546 - 14762, n=2)
14654 Points ∼96% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (2016 - 15318, n=209)
3994 Points ∼26% -73%

Legend

 
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, ARM Mali-G72 MP18, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Apple iPhone 8 Plus Apple A11 Bionic, Apple A11 Bionic GPU, Apple 256 GB (iPhone 8 / Plus)
 
HTC U12 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Huawei Mate 10 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 970, ARM Mali-G72 MP12, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
OnePlus 6 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
LG G7 ThinQ Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy Note 8 Samsung Exynos 8895 Octa, ARM Mali-G71 MP20, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
223.5 Points ∼100% +255%
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66)
88.081 Points ∼39% +40%
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
87.695 Points ∼39% +39%
HTC U12 Plus (Chrome 66)
87.036 Points ∼39% +38%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0)
69.57 Points ∼31% +10%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (63 - 69.6, n=3)
66.8 Points ∼30% +6%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 (Chrome 68)
63.012 Points ∼28%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61)
56.63 Points ∼25% -10%
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 224, n=374)
33.3 Points ∼15% -47%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
35209 Points ∼100% +140%
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
17026 Points ∼48% +16%
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66)
16720 Points ∼47% +14%
HTC U12 Plus (Chrome 66)
16285 Points ∼46% +11%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (14663 - 15233, n=3)
14885 Points ∼42% +2%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 (Chrome 68)
14663 Points ∼42%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0)
13265 Points ∼38% -10%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61)
10406 Points ∼30% -29%
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 35255, n=510)
4991 Points ∼14% -66%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (718 - 59466, n=529)
11924 ms * ∼100% -340%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61)
3590.6 ms * ∼30% -32%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 (Chrome 68)
2710 ms * ∼23%
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66)
2484.1 ms * ∼21% +8%
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
2445 ms * ∼21% +10%
HTC U12 Plus (Chrome 66)
2409.6 ms * ∼20% +11%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (2060 - 2710, n=3)
2283 ms * ∼19% +16%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0)
1876.8 ms * ∼16% +31%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
719.7 ms * ∼6% +73%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
362 Points ∼100% +79%
HTC U12 Plus (Chrome 66)
257 Points ∼71% +27%
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
252 Points ∼70% +25%
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66)
252 Points ∼70% +25%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 (Chrome 68)
202 Points ∼56%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (163 - 202, n=3)
176 Points ∼49% -13%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0)
159 Points ∼44% -21%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61)
158 Points ∼44% -22%
Average of class Smartphone (27 - 362, n=249)
99.9 Points ∼28% -51%

* ... smaller is better

Samsung Galaxy Note 9HTC U12 PlusHuawei Mate 10 ProOnePlus 6LG G7 ThinQSamsung Galaxy Note 8Average 128 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
63%
170%
-0%
-5%
-10%
66%
-49%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
66.7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
63.64 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-5%
62.67 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-6%
59.27 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-11%
61 (51.3 - 66.7, n=3)
-9%
43.9 (3.4 - 87.1, n=289)
-34%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
77 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
84.32 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
10%
84.72 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
10%
67.87 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-12%
77.8 (75.4 - 81, n=3)
1%
62.4 (8.2 - 96.5, n=289)
-19%
Random Write 4KB
21
104.24
396%
164.45
683%
21.8
4%
23.26
11%
14.55
-31%
105 (20 - 164, n=11)
400%
13.8 (0.14 - 164, n=568)
-34%
Random Read 4KB
134
118.14
-12%
132.27
-1%
137
2%
110.46
-18%
122.48
-9%
139 (132 - 147, n=11)
4%
35.1 (1.59 - 173, n=568)
-74%
Sequential Write 256KB
196
195.82
0%
208.72
6%
201.4
3%
176.45
-10%
205.85
5%
201 (192 - 212, n=11)
3%
73.5 (2.99 - 228, n=568)
-62%
Sequential Read 256KB
805
709.11
-12%
732.46
-9%
725.6
-10%
695.15
-14%
796.96
-1%
771 (699 - 832, n=11)
-4%
215 (12.1 - 895, n=568)
-73%
Asphalt 9: Legends
 ConfiguraçõesValor
 High Quality30 fps
 Standard / low30 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
PUBG Mobile
 ConfiguraçõesValor
 Smooth40 fps
 HD40 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Arena of Valor
 ConfiguraçõesValor
 min60 fps
 high HD60 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Carga Máxima
 40.3 °C41.2 °C39.9 °C 
 41.5 °C43.2 °C41.2 °C 
 42.6 °C45.9 °C41.5 °C 
Máximo: 45.9 °C
Médio: 41.9 °C
37.1 °C42.2 °C40.3 °C
37.8 °C43 °C40.6 °C
39.1 °C47 °C41.9 °C
Máximo: 47 °C
Médio: 41 °C
alimentação elétrica  43.8 °C | Temperatura do quarto 22.3 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2032.341.52525.6313125.733.24027.429.2503738.36323.323.68021.424.110021.725.112519.933.216017.439.9200174725016.450.131514.551.340014.256.750014.156.963012.655.580012.558.510001259.9125011.860.9160011.662.4200011.463.9250011.358.8315011.456.1400011.159.7500011.258630011.356.7800011.259.41000011.358.41250011.355.71600011.350.9SPL54.565.56767.167.365.824.171.6N9.618.919.520.221.617.80.629median 11.8Samsung Galaxy Note 9median 56.7Delta1.74.531.641.625.437.825.337.432.933.833.63831.632.328.432.32738.220.843.82249.321.351.820.852.121.253.619.454.219.562.417.765.417.965.117.866.317.365.817.468.416.767.717.267.818.270.417.971.317.669.817.77117.871.317.965.318.162.818.257.63080.11.348.9median 17.9Apple iPhone 8 Plusmedian 65.31.37.3hearing rangehide median Pink Noise
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 audio analysis

(-) | not very loud speakers (71.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 15.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.9% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.6% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (13.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 0% of all tested devices in this class were better, 0% similar, 100% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 10% of all tested devices were better, 2% similar, 88% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Apple iPhone 8 Plus audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 17.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (15.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 2% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 16% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 79% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Samsung Galaxy Note 9
4000 mAh
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
2691 mAh
HTC U12 Plus
3500 mAh
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
4000 mAh
OnePlus 6
3300 mAh
LG G7 ThinQ
3000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
3300 mAh
Average Samsung Exynos 9810
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
6%
-3%
25%
29%
3%
30%
26%
22%
Idle Minimum *
0.9
0.72
20%
0.77
14%
0.85
6%
0.6
33%
1.16
-29%
0.73
19%
0.743 (0.65 - 0.9, n=3)
17%
0.877 (0.2 - 3.4, n=595)
3%
Idle Average *
1.9
2.45
-29%
2.18
-15%
1.15
39%
1
47%
1.98
-4%
1.44
24%
1.22 (0.81 - 1.9, n=3)
36%
1.714 (0.6 - 6.2, n=594)
10%
Idle Maximum *
3.7
2.52
32%
2.21
40%
1.23
67%
1.6
57%
2.07
44%
1.53
59%
1.903 (0.92 - 3.7, n=3)
49%
1.984 (0.74 - 6.6, n=595)
46%
Load Average *
5.3
3.84
28%
6.25
-18%
4.12
22%
4.3
19%
4.51
15%
4.56
14%
4.88 (4.58 - 5.3, n=3)
8%
4.02 (0.8 - 10.8, n=589)
24%
Load Maximum *
7.6
9.02
-19%
10.16
-34%
8.42
-11%
8.6
-13%
8.3
-9%
5.09
33%
5.97 (5.16 - 7.6, n=3)
21%
5.67 (1.2 - 14.2, n=589)
25%

* ... smaller is better

Tempo de Execução da Bateria
Ocioso (sem WLAN, min brilho)
28h 07min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
13h 14min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
14h 56min
Carga (máximo brilho)
5h 54min
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
4000 mAh
Apple iPhone 8 Plus
2691 mAh
HTC U12 Plus
3500 mAh
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
4000 mAh
OnePlus 6
3300 mAh
LG G7 ThinQ
3000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Note 8
3300 mAh
Battery Runtime
-13%
-33%
6%
-10%
-13%
-33%
Reader / Idle
1687
2085
24%
1452
-14%
1744
3%
1806
7%
1662
-1%
1134
-33%
H.264
896
733
-18%
464
-48%
929
4%
791
-12%
908
1%
662
-26%
WiFi v1.3
794
657
-17%
507
-36%
818
3%
762
-4%
591
-26%
474
-40%
Load
354
211
-40%
230
-35%
398
12%
246
-31%
260
-27%
246
-31%
In review: Samsung Galaxy Note 9. Review device courtesy of Samsung Germany
In review: Samsung Galaxy Note 9. Review device courtesy of Samsung Germany

A Samsung mais uma vez oferece o smartphone corporativo do ano, nada menos é esperado. Mesmo os proprietários do Note 8 têm muito a ganhar ao mudar para o Note 9. No entanto, isso não tem muito a ver com a S Pen: A nova funcionalidade de controle remoto é perfeita, mas não revolucionária. O que é mais importante é que o Galaxy Note 9 tem uma bateria significativamente maior do que o antecessor, que pode durar vários dias com uma única carga.

Há também desvantagens, como o afogamento sob carga sustentada e todo o bloatware pré instalado. Aqueles que quiserem usar o dispositivo sem uma capa de proteção geralmente terão o smartphone totalmente coberto com impressões digitais

Fora isso, nada mudou muito quando comparado com o antecessor: A câmera oferece alguns recursos novos, há uma versão opcional com uma quantidade extrema de espaço de armazenamento e a tela é ligeiramente maior. E por falar da tela: Mesmo que a reprodução de cores não seja a ideal, a precisão da cor pode ser melhorada de forma significativa através da calibração manual. Além disso, a tela cobre o espaço de cores sRGB e o espaço de cores DCI-P3 completamente, e o espaço de cores AdobeRGB parcialmente. Em suma, o Note 9 é um sonho que se torna realidade para quem precisa de uma tela de cores precisas.

Com o Galaxy Note 9, a Samsung oferece um excelente phablet de negócios novamente - desta vez com uma grande bateria. 

De qualquer forma, o que pode ser melhorado em um smartphone tão bom: A carcaça ainda é extremamente rígida, o LTE é rápido, existem muitas formas de desbloquear o dispositivo, além de também estar a S Pen, que atualmente não possui rivais no mercado.

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Análises e revisões de portáteis e celulares > Análises > Análises > Breve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Florian Wimmer, 2018-08-28 (Update: 2018-09-11)