Notebookcheck

Breve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 (SM-G390F)

Florian Wimmer (traduzido por Ricardo Soto), 06/26/2017

Robusto e elegante? A Samsung pretende fornecer um smartphone que sobreviva em ambientes difíceis, mas também irradia elegância ao mesmo tempo. O aparelho é, de fato, robusto e não muito volumoso. Verificamos se a sua conveniência diária é tão impressionante.

Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 (Galaxy XCover Serie)
Processador
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad 1.4 GHz
Placa gráfica
ARM Mali-T720
Memória
2048 MB 
Pantalha
5 polegadas 16:9, 1280x720 pixel 294 PPI, Tela táctil capacitiva, IPS, Brilhante: sim
Disco rígido
16 GB eMMC Flash, 16 GB 
, 10.1 GB livre
Conexões
1 USB 2.0, Conexões Audio: Fones de 3,5-mm, Card Reader: micro-SD máx. 256 GB, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensores: Sensor de posição, acelerômetro, sensor de proximidade
Funcionamento em rede
802.11a/b/g/n (a/b/g/n), Bluetooth 4.2, GSM (850/​900/​1800/​1900), UMTS (850/​900/​1900/​2100), LTE (B1/​B3/​B5/​B7/​B8/​B20/​B38/​B40); LTE Cat.4 (max. 150Mbps download / ​max. 50Mbps upload); SAR rate: 0.611W/​kg (head), 1.24W/​kg (body), LTE, GPS
Tamanho
altura x largura x profundidade (em mm): 9.7 x 146.2 x 73.3
Bateria
10.6 Wh, 2800 mAh Lítio-Ion, removeable, Tempo de conversação 3G (de acordo com o fabricante): 17 h
Sistema Operativo
Android 7.0 Nougat
Camera
Primary Camera: 13 MPix f/1.9, contrast AF, LED flash
Secondary Camera: 5 MPix f/2.2
Características adicionais
Alto falantes: Alto-falante na borda direita, Teclado: Teclado virtual, charger, USB cable, S Health, Knox (secure container), Samsung Notes, 24 Meses Garantia, IP68 certified, MIL-STD-810G certified, fanless, ruggedized
peso
172 g, Suprimento de energia: 52 g
Preço
249 Euro

 

Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4

Size Comparison

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Huawei P10 Lite
Mali-T830 MP2, Kirin 658, 32 GB eMMC Flash
229 MBit/s ∼100% +365%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Mali-T720, 7570 Quad, 16 GB eMMC Flash
49.2 MBit/s ∼21%
AGM A8
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 32 GB eMMC Flash
26.9 MBit/s ∼12% -45%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Huawei P10 Lite
Mali-T830 MP2, Kirin 658, 32 GB eMMC Flash
232 MBit/s ∼100% +512%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Mali-T720, 7570 Quad, 16 GB eMMC Flash
37.9 MBit/s ∼16%
AGM A8
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 32 GB eMMC Flash
18.4 MBit/s ∼8% -51%
GPS Garmin Edge 500: Overview
GPS Garmin Edge 500: Overview
GPS Garmin Edge 500: Crossing
GPS Garmin Edge 500: Crossing
GPS Garmin Edge 500: Bridge
GPS Garmin Edge 500: Bridge
GPS Samsung Galaxy Xcover 4: Overview
GPS Samsung Galaxy Xcover 4: Overview
GPS Samsung Galaxy Xcover 4: Crossing
GPS Samsung Galaxy Xcover 4: Crossing
GPS Samsung Galaxy Xcover 4: Bridge
GPS Samsung Galaxy Xcover 4: Bridge

Image Comparison

Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the zoom step. 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
430
cd/m²
452
cd/m²
462
cd/m²
421
cd/m²
445
cd/m²
453
cd/m²
407
cd/m²
416
cd/m²
445
cd/m²
Distribuição do brilho
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Máximo: 462 cd/m² Médio: 436.8 cd/m² Minimum: 3.71 cd/m²
iluminação: 88 %
iluminação com acumulador: 445 cd/m²
Contraste: 664:1 (Preto: 0.67 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.5 | - Ø
ΔE Greyscale 7.2 | - Ø
Gamma: 2.53
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
IPS, 1280x720, 5
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
IPS, 800x480, 4.5
Huawei P10 Lite
IPS, 1920x1080, 5.2
Motorola Moto X Force
AMOLED, 2560x1440, 5.4
AGM A8
IPS, 1280x720, 5
Screen
16%
37%
24%
54%
Brightness
437
436
0%
509
16%
336
-23%
343
-22%
Brightness Distribution
88
91
3%
95
8%
91
3%
93
6%
Black Level *
0.67
0.53
21%
0.36
46%
0.21
69%
Contrast
664
853
28%
1408
112%
1695
155%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
6.5
5.71
12%
5.1
22%
3.99
39%
3.7
43%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
7.2
5.02
30%
6.1
15%
1.66
77%
1.9
74%
Gamma
2.53 95%
2.15 112%
2.28 105%
2.32 103%
2.5 96%
CCT
8274 79%
7441 87%
8143 80%
6584 99%
6412 101%

* ... 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 20400 Hz90 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 20400 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 90 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 20400 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 58 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 5069 (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
16 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 7 ms rise
↘ 9 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 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 8 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (26.9 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
36 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 17 ms rise
↘ 19 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. » 25 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (43.4 ms).
AnTuTu Benchmark v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
35379 Points ∼16%
Huawei P10 Lite
60438 Points ∼27% +71%
Motorola Moto X Force
89911 Points ∼39% +154%
AGM A8
26753 Points ∼12% -24%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
952 Points ∼32%
Huawei P10 Lite
1592 Points ∼53% +67%
Motorola Moto X Force
1351 Points ∼45% +42%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
85 Points ∼2%
Huawei P10 Lite
326 Points ∼6% +284%
Motorola Moto X Force
2067 Points ∼38% +2332%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
107 Points ∼3%
Huawei P10 Lite
396 Points ∼10% +270%
Motorola Moto X Force
1849 Points ∼48% +1628%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
955 Points ∼33%
Huawei P10 Lite
1537 Points ∼53% +61%
Motorola Moto X Force
1282 Points ∼44% +34%
AGM A8
739 Points ∼25% -23%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
157 Points ∼2%
Huawei P10 Lite
520 Points ∼7% +231%
Motorola Moto X Force
3226 Points ∼42% +1955%
AGM A8
43 Points ∼1% -73%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
193 Points ∼4%
Huawei P10 Lite
610 Points ∼12% +216%
Motorola Moto X Force
2413 Points ∼48% +1150%
AGM A8
54 Points ∼1% -72%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
11459 Points ∼17%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
9613 Points ∼14% -16%
Huawei P10 Lite
13510 Points ∼20% +18%
Motorola Moto X Force
11963 Points ∼17% +4%
AGM A8
9082 Points ∼13% -21%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
3985 Points ∼1%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
2591 Points ∼1% -35%
Huawei P10 Lite
10603 Points ∼2% +166%
Motorola Moto X Force
38394 Points ∼8% +863%
AGM A8
3808 Points ∼1% -4%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
4661 Points ∼2%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
3093 Points ∼2% -34%
Huawei P10 Lite
11135 Points ∼6% +139%
Motorola Moto X Force
25751 Points ∼13% +452%
AGM A8
4372 Points ∼2% -6%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
6.8 fps ∼1%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
5.4 fps ∼0% -21%
Huawei P10 Lite
17 fps ∼1% +150%
Motorola Moto X Force
58 fps ∼4% +753%
AGM A8
2.8 fps ∼0% -59%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
11 fps ∼2%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
15.1 fps ∼3% +37%
Huawei P10 Lite
18 fps ∼4% +64%
Motorola Moto X Force
42 fps ∼9% +282%
AGM A8
9.5 fps ∼2% -14%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
2.6 fps ∼0%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
0.8 fps ∼0% -69%
Huawei P10 Lite
7.2 fps ∼1% +177%
Motorola Moto X Force
27 fps ∼5% +938%
AGM A8
1.8 fps ∼0% -31%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
5.4 fps ∼1%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
2.3 fps ∼1% -57%
Huawei P10 Lite
7.7 fps ∼2% +43%
Motorola Moto X Force
17 fps ∼5% +215%
AGM A8
4 fps ∼1% -26%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
1.6 fps ∼0%
Huawei P10 Lite
4.2 fps ∼1% +163%
Motorola Moto X Force
20 fps ∼5% +1150%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
3.9 fps ∼2%
Huawei P10 Lite
4.8 fps ∼3% +23%
Motorola Moto X Force
12 fps ∼7% +208%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
3446 Points ∼50%
Huawei P10 Lite
4464 Points ∼65% +30%
AGM A8
3701 Points ∼54% +7%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
4508 Points ∼54%
Huawei P10 Lite
5794 Points ∼70% +29%
Motorola Moto X Force
5365 Points ∼65% +19%
AGM A8
2920 Points ∼35% -35%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
661 Points ∼43%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
744 Points ∼48% +13%
Huawei P10 Lite
654 Points ∼42% -1%
Motorola Moto X Force
939 Points ∼61% +42%
AGM A8
557 Points ∼36% -16%
Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
253 Points ∼3%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
129 Points ∼1% -49%
Huawei P10 Lite
829 Points ∼10% +228%
Motorola Moto X Force
3376 Points ∼39% +1234%
AGM A8
306 Points ∼4% +21%
Memory (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
1066 Points ∼25%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
366 Points ∼9% -66%
Huawei P10 Lite
1592 Points ∼37% +49%
Motorola Moto X Force
1085 Points ∼25% +2%
AGM A8
757 Points ∼18% -29%
System (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
1396 Points ∼21%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
1103 Points ∼17% -21%
Huawei P10 Lite
2642 Points ∼40% +89%
Motorola Moto X Force
2878 Points ∼44% +106%
AGM A8
1161 Points ∼18% -17%
Overall (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
706 Points ∼19%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
443 Points ∼12% -37%
Huawei P10 Lite
1229 Points ∼33% +74%
Motorola Moto X Force
1774 Points ∼48% +151%
AGM A8
622 Points ∼17% -12%
Geekbench 4.1
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
1855 Points ∼12%
Huawei P10 Lite
3460 Points ∼23% +87%
AGM A8
1383 Points ∼9% -25%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
629 Points ∼13%
Huawei P10 Lite
913 Points ∼19% +45%
AGM A8
515 Points ∼11% -18%

Legend

 
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, ARM Mali-T720, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3 Marvell Armada PXA1908, Vivante GC7000UL, 8 GB eMMC Flash
 
Huawei P10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 658, ARM Mali-T830 MP2, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
Motorola Moto X Force Qualcomm Snapdragon 810 MSM8994, Qualcomm Adreno 430, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
AGM A8 Qualcomm Snapdragon 410 MSM8916, Qualcomm Adreno 306, 32 GB eMMC Flash
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
11130 ms * ∼19%
Huawei P10 Lite
8590.8 ms * ∼14% +23%
Motorola Moto X Force
4080.1 ms * ∼7% +63%
AGM A8
12247.9 ms * ∼21% -10%
Octane V2 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
3133 Points ∼6%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
2059 Points ∼4% -34%
Huawei P10 Lite
4589 Points ∼9% +46%
Motorola Moto X Force
8699 Points ∼18% +178%
AGM A8
2733 Points ∼6% -13%
JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
20.988 Points ∼6%
Huawei P10 Lite
30.047 Points ∼9% +43%
Motorola Moto X Force
49.373 Points ∼15% +135%
AGM A8
16.897 Points ∼5% -19%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
61 Points ∼8%
Huawei P10 Lite
62 Points ∼8% +2%
Motorola Moto X Force
103 Points ∼14% +69%

* ... smaller is better

AndroBench 3-5
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
55.66 MB/s ∼64%
Huawei P10 Lite
32.7 MB/s ∼38% -41%
Motorola Moto X Force
46.96 MB/s ∼54% -16%
AGM A8
20.46 MB/s ∼23% -63%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
68.97 MB/s ∼71%
Huawei P10 Lite
53.4 MB/s ∼55% -23%
Motorola Moto X Force
79.04 MB/s ∼82% +15%
AGM A8
22.01 MB/s ∼23% -68%
Random Write 4KB (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
11.9 MB/s ∼8%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
4 MB/s ∼3% -66%
Huawei P10 Lite
19.36 MB/s ∼13% +63%
Motorola Moto X Force
19.78 MB/s ∼13% +66%
AGM A8
3.73 MB/s ∼2% -69%
Random Read 4KB (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
21.8 MB/s ∼13%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
15.8 MB/s ∼9% -28%
Huawei P10 Lite
72.47 MB/s ∼42% +232%
Motorola Moto X Force
22.55 MB/s ∼13% +3%
AGM A8
11.44 MB/s ∼7% -48%
Sequential Write 256KB (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
73.6 MB/s ∼36%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
25.6 MB/s ∼12% -65%
Huawei P10 Lite
129.18 MB/s ∼63% +76%
Motorola Moto X Force
47.99 MB/s ∼23% -35%
AGM A8
69.47 MB/s ∼34% -6%
Sequential Read 256KB (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
181.6 MB/s ∼23%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
113.5 MB/s ∼14% -37%
Huawei P10 Lite
264.3 MB/s ∼33% +46%
Motorola Moto X Force
252.03 MB/s ∼32% +39%
AGM A8
140.67 MB/s ∼18% -23%
Asphalt 8: Airborne
 ConfiguraçõesValor
 high23 fps
 very low30 fps
Dead Trigger 2
 ConfiguraçõesValor
 high30 fps
Carga Máxima
 36.4 °C36.6 °C34.8 °C 
 38.2 °C36.6 °C35.7 °C 
 37.9 °C37 °C36.2 °C 
Máximo: 38.2 °C
Médio: 36.6 °C
36.2 °C36.6 °C36.6 °C
35.8 °C37.4 °C37.3 °C
35.6 °C37.5 °C37.3 °C
Máximo: 37.5 °C
Médio: 36.7 °C
alimentação elétrica  30.6 °C | Temperatura do quarto 21.5 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2031.634.12525.433.43125.332.34032.927.65033.628.16331.634.48028.430.11002736.512520.833.41602241.220021.347.625020.852.131521.255.240019.457.450019.560.363017.765.480017.968.6100017.870125017.370.6160017.472200016.771.3250017.269.7315018.271400017.972.4500017.666.3630017.761.4800017.857.91000017.9581250018.149.21600018.246.6SPL3080.4N1.347.4median 17.9Samsung Galaxy XCover 4median 60.3Delta1.310.731.641.725.440.125.336.632.927.533.629.731.633.228.429.42727.420.825.1222321.32720.839.221.247.819.454.319.562.517.772.217.975.317.876.717.374.917.472.916.774.917.275.818.276.617.97617.672.317.761.217.856.217.95718.163.718.252.73085.81.359.8median 17.9AGM A8median 62.51.316.9hearing rangehide median Pink Noise
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 15.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 7.4% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 26% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 63% worse
» The best had a delta of 14%, average was 26%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 55% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 38% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 22%, worst was 53%

AGM A8 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.78 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 30.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 10% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 9.1% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (33.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 84% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 9% worse
» The best had a delta of 14%, average was 26%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 91% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 5% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 22%, worst was 53%

Consumo de energia
desligadodarklight 0.006 / 0.1 Watt
Ociosodarkmidlight 0.56 / 1.57 / 1.68 Watt
Carga midlight 4.6 / 5.92 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
2800 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
 mAh
Huawei P10 Lite
3000 mAh
Motorola Moto X Force
3760 mAh
AGM A8
4050 mAh
Power Consumption
24%
7%
-26%
-23%
Idle Minimum *
0.56
0.6
-7%
0.38
32%
0.96
-71%
0.86
-54%
Idle Average *
1.57
1.2
24%
1.87
-19%
1.35
14%
1.97
-25%
Idle Maximum *
1.68
1.3
23%
1.92
-14%
1.4
17%
2.04
-21%
Load Average *
4.6
2.6
43%
3.82
17%
6.11
-33%
4.86
-6%
Load Maximum *
5.92
3.6
39%
4.9
17%
9.43
-59%
6.43
-9%

* ... smaller is better

Tempo de Execução da Bateria
Ocioso (sem WLAN, min brilho)
23h 08min
Navegar com WLAN v1.3
11h 08min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
11h 21min
Carga (máximo brilho)
3h 25min
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
2800 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
 mAh
Huawei P10 Lite
3000 mAh
Motorola Moto X Force
3760 mAh
AGM A8
4050 mAh
Battery Runtime
-18%
7%
11%
-2%
Reader / Idle
1388
1002
-28%
1410
2%
1610
16%
H.264
681
678
0%
586
-14%
710
4%
WiFi v1.3
668
503
-25%
665
0%
426
-36%
654
-2%
Load
205
166
-19%
286
40%
330
61%

Pro

+ Carcaça sólida e discreta
+ Botões físicos diversos
+ Resistente à água e à poeira
+ Módulo GPS muito preciso
+ Boa duração da bateria
+ Tela brilhante
+ Bateria removível
+ Modo luvas
+ UI com muitas opções
+ Android 7.0

Contra

- Baixa configuração de memória
- Qualidade pobre da voz e áudio
- Qualidade moderada da câmera frontal
- Valor de preto relativamente alto
- Tonalidade azul no painel
- Desempenho moderado dos jogos
In review: Samsung Galaxy XCover 4. Review sample courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de
In review: Samsung Galaxy XCover 4. Review sample courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de

Mesmo que o Galaxy XCover 4 da Samsung não seja tão resistente quanto parece, ele está protegido melhor do que muitos outros smartphones muito sensíveis. A carcaça de plástico robusta não parece volumosa e até a bateria pode ser substituída. A proteção contra água e poeira foi aumentada em comparação com o antecessor, e o falante agora funciona de forma impecável quando o telefone está molhado. Depois de usá-lo na água, encontramos uma gota de água debaixo da tampa traseira. Por isso, o aparelho deve ser seco separadamente aqui.

A configuração de armazenamento do aparelho poderia ser mais generosa, mas o seu sistema operacional extensivo e a câmera primária bastante útil, são convincentes. As opções de entrada são diversas, a tela é adequada e o desempenho suficiente para a rotina diária. A duração da bateria também se adapta bem à boa impressão geral. Não gostamos da qualidade de som e do desempenho dos jogo do aparelho.

Como seu antecessor, o Galaxy XCover 4 não é adequado para situações extremas, mas bastante bem equipado para as incertezas da vida cotidiana. A carcaça dura esconde um smartphone sólido, de gama média baixa.

Os usuários que precisam de um smartphone extremamente robusto e de agam alta para situações extremas terão que dar uma olhada nos especialistas. A Samsung oferece um aparelho sólido para um uso de rotina ligeiramente mais exigente, para caminhadas ou a visita ocasional a um local de construção empoeirado. Dado que o dispositivo é relativamente barato e pode servir com GPS muito bom, é bastante adequado para essas situações.

Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 - 06/12/2017 v6
Florian Wimmer

Acabamento
90%
Teclado
69 / 75 → 92%
Mouse
92%
Conectividade
37 / 60 → 62%
Peso
90%
Bateria
93%
Pantalha
82%
Desempenho do jogos
7 / 63 → 11%
Desempenho da aplicação
40 / 70 → 58%
Temperatura
89%
Ruído
100%
Audio
49 / 91 → 54%
Camera
66%
Médio
70%
81%
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 XCover 4 (SM-G390F)
Florian Wimmer, 2017-06-26 (Update: 2017-07- 3)