Notebookcheck

Breve Análise do Smartphone Sharp Aquos C10

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

Sharp Comeback. Com o smartphone de gama média Sharp Aquos C10, o fabricante que é bastante bem sucedido no Japão também tenta voltar a ganhar um lugar no Ocidente. Graças a um bom desempenho e amplo espaço na tela, o smartphone pode ser atraente. Descubra em nossa análise se o retorno é bem-sucedido.

Sharp Aquos C10 (Aquos Serie)
Placa gráfica
Qualcomm Adreno 508
Memória
4096 MB 
Pantalha
5.5 polegadas 17:9, 2040 x 1080 pixel 420 PPI, Tela táctil capacitiva, IPS, Brilhante: sim
Disco rígido
64 GB eMMC Flash, 64 GB 
, 50 GB livre
Conexões
1 USB 2.0, Conexões Audio: Saída de áudio via USB-C, Card Reader: microSD até 128 GB, 1 Leitor de Impressões Digitais, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensores: Sensor de aceleração, gíroscòpio, sensor de proximidade sensor, bússola, USB-C
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/​1900/​2100), LTE (B1/​B3/​B7/​B8/​B20), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Tamanho
altura x largura x profundidade (em mm): 7.9 x 141.8 x 72
Bateria
10.26 Wh, 2700 mAh Lítio-Polímero
Sistema Operativo
Android 8.0 Oreo
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix Dual camera system: 12 MP, f/​1.75, phase comparison AF (dual-pixel), dual LED flash, videos @1080p/​30fps (câmera principal), 8 MP, f/​2.0, depth sharpness (câmera secundária)
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix f/2.0
Características adicionais
Alto falantes: Alto-falante mono na borda inferior, Teclado: Teclado virtual, Carregador rápido, cabo USB, capa, ferramenta SIM, adaptador USB-C para 3,5 mm, 24 Meses Garantia, LTE Cat.4 (download: 150 Mbit/s / upload: 50 Mbit/s); SAR 0,353 W/kg (head), 1,73 (body), fanless
peso
140 g, Suprimento de energia: 61 g
Preço
399 Euro

 

Sharp Aquos C10
Sharp Aquos C10
Sharp Aquos C10
Sharp Aquos C10
Sharp Aquos C10
Sharp Aquos C10

Size Comparison

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Sharp Aquos C10
Adreno 508, 630, 64 GB eMMC Flash
308 MBit/s ∼100%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
Adreno 512, 660, 64 GB eMMC Flash
281 MBit/s ∼91% -9%
JVC J20
Adreno 508, 630, 64 GB eMMC Flash
221 MBit/s ∼72% -28%
Honor View 10
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
200 MBit/s ∼65% -35%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=264)
188 MBit/s ∼61% -39%
LG Q7 Plus
Mali-T860 MP2, MT6750S, 64 GB eMMC Flash
42.7 MBit/s ∼14% -86%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
Adreno 512, 660, 64 GB eMMC Flash
346 MBit/s ∼100% +11%
Sharp Aquos C10
Adreno 508, 630, 64 GB eMMC Flash
313 MBit/s ∼90%
JVC J20
Adreno 508, 630, 64 GB eMMC Flash
226 MBit/s ∼65% -28%
Honor View 10
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
223 MBit/s ∼64% -29%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=264)
184 MBit/s ∼53% -41%
LG Q7 Plus
Mali-T860 MP2, MT6750S, 64 GB eMMC Flash
54.5 MBit/s ∼16% -83%
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – overview
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – overview
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – forest
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – forest
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – bridge
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – bridge
GPS Sharp Aquos C10 – overview
GPS Sharp Aquos C10 – overview
GPS Sharp Aquos C10 – forest
GPS Sharp Aquos C10 – forest
GPS Sharp Aquos C10 – bridge
GPS Sharp Aquos C10 – 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
548
cd/m²
551
cd/m²
509
cd/m²
544
cd/m²
548
cd/m²
518
cd/m²
533
cd/m²
533
cd/m²
532
cd/m²
Distribuição do brilho
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Máximo: 551 cd/m² Médio: 535.1 cd/m² Minimum: 2.44 cd/m²
iluminação: 92 %
iluminação com acumulador: 548 cd/m²
Contraste: 1118:1 (Preto: 0.49 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.21 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.3
ΔE Greyscale 6.1 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
95.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.228
Sharp Aquos C10
IPS, 2040x1080, 5.5
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
LTPS, 2160x1080, 5.65
JVC J20
IPS, 2160x1080, 5.65
LG Q7 Plus
IPS, 2160x1080, 5.5
Honor View 10
IPS, 2160x1080, 5.99
Screen
11%
-32%
-12%
29%
Brightness middle
548
675
23%
411
-25%
431
-21%
530
-3%
Brightness
535
650
21%
426
-20%
419
-22%
523
-2%
Brightness Distribution
92
92
0%
82
-11%
89
-3%
88
-4%
Black Level *
0.49
0.46
6%
0.53
-8%
0.58
-18%
0.35
29%
Contrast
1118
1467
31%
775
-31%
743
-34%
1514
35%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
5.21
5.9
-13%
8.84
-70%
6.2
-19%
2.4
54%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
13.47
9.5
29%
15.08
-12%
10.1
25%
5.5
59%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
6.1
6.6
-8%
10.7
-75%
6.2
-2%
2.2
64%
Gamma
2.228 99%
2.36 93%
2.433 90%
2.26 97%
2.25 98%
CCT
7538 86%
7846 83%
10717 61%
8064 81%
6598 99%

* ... 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 250 Hz ≤ 10 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 250 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 10 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 250 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
20 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 7 ms rise
↘ 13 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. » 18 % 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
40 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 19 ms rise
↘ 21 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. » 44 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (41.2 ms).
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
71531 Points ∼41%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
115834 Points ∼67% +62%
JVC J20
67408 Points ∼39% -6%
LG Q7 Plus
44064 Points ∼25% -38%
Honor View 10
173653 Points ∼100% +143%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (67408 - 73617, n=10)
70754 Points ∼41% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (23275 - 232931, n=355)
71591 Points ∼41% 0%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
89351 Points ∼63%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
140875 Points ∼100% +58%
JVC J20
89279 Points ∼63% 0%
LG Q7 Plus
52855 Points ∼38% -41%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (87300 - 90435, n=7)
89327 Points ∼63% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (17073 - 290397, n=128)
101147 Points ∼72% +13%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
4636 Points ∼69%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
5965 Points ∼89% +29%
JVC J20
4836 Points ∼72% +4%
LG Q7 Plus
3080 Points ∼46% -34%
Honor View 10
6724 Points ∼100% +45%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (4636 - 5085, n=9)
4881 Points ∼73% +5%
Average of class Smartphone (6293 - 8601, n=217)
4382 Points ∼65% -5%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
5377 Points ∼65%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
6332 Points ∼76% +18%
JVC J20
5762 Points ∼69% +7%
LG Q7 Plus
3969 Points ∼48% -26%
Honor View 10
8306 Points ∼100% +54%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (5083 - 6264, n=9)
5696 Points ∼69% +6%
Average of class Smartphone (4447 - 10264, n=381)
4677 Points ∼56% -13%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
666 Points ∼56%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
1146 Points ∼97% +72%
JVC J20
862 Points ∼73% +29%
LG Q7 Plus
751 Points ∼63% +13%
Honor View 10
1184 Points ∼100% +78%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (666 - 925, n=9)
844 Points ∼71% +27%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1682, n=456)
666 Points ∼56% 0%
Graphics (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
1502 Points ∼39%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
2279 Points ∼59% +52%
JVC J20
1470 Points ∼38% -2%
LG Q7 Plus
631 Points ∼16% -58%
Honor View 10
3892 Points ∼100% +159%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (1470 - 1523, n=9)
1504 Points ∼39% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 9248, n=456)
1509 Points ∼39% 0%
Memory (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
998 Points ∼23%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
2494 Points ∼58% +150%
JVC J20
1159 Points ∼27% +16%
LG Q7 Plus
800 Points ∼19% -20%
Honor View 10
4276 Points ∼100% +328%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (838 - 1405, n=9)
1201 Points ∼28% +20%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 4798, n=456)
1126 Points ∼26% +13%
System (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
1763 Points ∼34%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
5048 Points ∼97% +186%
JVC J20
3288 Points ∼63% +87%
LG Q7 Plus
1407 Points ∼27% -20%
Honor View 10
5195 Points ∼100% +195%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (1763 - 3319, n=9)
3099 Points ∼60% +76%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 10281, n=456)
2258 Points ∼43% +28%
Overall (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
1152 Points ∼36%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
2394 Points ∼75% +108%
JVC J20
1483 Points ∼47% +29%
LG Q7 Plus
855 Points ∼27% -26%
Honor View 10
3181 Points ∼100% +176%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (1152 - 1563, n=9)
1468 Points ∼46% +27%
Average of class Smartphone (150 - 4308, n=460)
1132 Points ∼36% -2%
Geekbench 4.1/4.2
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
2910 Points ∼32%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
5688 Points ∼63% +95%
JVC J20
3681 Points ∼41% +26%
LG Q7 Plus
2084 Points ∼23% -28%
Honor View 10
9015 Points ∼100% +210%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (2910 - 3956, n=8)
3697 Points ∼41% +27%
Average of class Smartphone (836 - 14417, n=156)
3938 Points ∼44% +35%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
2246 Points ∼33%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
5856 Points ∼86% +161%
JVC J20
4220 Points ∼62% +88%
LG Q7 Plus
2135 Points ∼31% -5%
Honor View 10
6785 Points ∼100% +202%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (883 - 4234, n=9)
3583 Points ∼53% +60%
Average of class Smartphone (1099 - 10558, n=203)
3987 Points ∼59% +78%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
710 Points ∼37%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
1579 Points ∼82% +122%
JVC J20
879 Points ∼46% +24%
LG Q7 Plus
639 Points ∼33% -10%
Honor View 10
1918 Points ∼100% +170%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (710 - 4210, n=9)
1218 Points ∼64% +72%
Average of class Smartphone (394 - 4265, n=204)
1168 Points ∼61% +65%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
1719 Points ∼59%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
2628 Points ∼90% +53%
JVC J20
1765 Points ∼60% +3%
LG Q7 Plus
1031 Points ∼35% -40%
Honor View 10
2931 Points ∼100% +71%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (1631 - 1822, n=9)
1747 Points ∼60% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (500 - 3669, n=307)
1552 Points ∼53% -10%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
712 Points ∼24%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
1196 Points ∼40% +68%
JVC J20
721 Points ∼24% +1%
LG Q7 Plus
80 Points ∼3% -89%
Honor View 10
2994 Points ∼100% +321%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (707 - 729, n=9)
720 Points ∼24% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (70 - 5220, n=307)
1065 Points ∼36% +50%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
819 Points ∼27%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
1361 Points ∼46% +66%
JVC J20
830 Points ∼28% +1%
LG Q7 Plus
101 Points ∼3% -88%
Honor View 10
2980 Points ∼100% +264%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (811 - 839, n=9)
828 Points ∼28% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (87 - 4734, n=315)
1021 Points ∼34% +25%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
1725 Points ∼65%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
2638 Points ∼100% +53%
JVC J20
1770 Points ∼67% +3%
LG Q7 Plus
1029 Points ∼39% -40%
Honor View 10
1906 Points ∼72% +10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (1698 - 1816, n=9)
1753 Points ∼66% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (474 - 3642, n=338)
1456 Points ∼55% -16%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
1286 Points ∼66%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
1938 Points ∼99% +51%
JVC J20
1257 Points ∼64% -2%
LG Q7 Plus
96 Points ∼5% -93%
Honor View 10
1954 Points ∼100% +52%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (1249 - 1289, n=9)
1262 Points ∼65% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (107 - 8312, n=338)
1446 Points ∼74% +12%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
1363 Points ∼66%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
2059 Points ∼100% +51%
JVC J20
1344 Points ∼65% -1%
LG Q7 Plus
120 Points ∼6% -91%
Honor View 10
1943 Points ∼94% +43%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (1332 - 1374, n=9)
1346 Points ∼65% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (120 - 6378, n=346)
1242 Points ∼60% -9%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
12667 Points ∼66%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
19050 Points ∼100% +50%
JVC J20
13153 Points ∼69% +4%
LG Q7 Plus
9903 Points ∼52% -22%
Honor View 10
14556 Points ∼76% +15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (12667 - 13196, n=9)
12981 Points ∼68% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (7716 - 36762, n=493)
12210 Points ∼64% -4%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
16508 Points ∼56%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
29306 Points ∼100% +78%
JVC J20
18471 Points ∼63% +12%
LG Q7 Plus
9656 Points ∼33% -42%
Honor View 10
22429 Points ∼77% +36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (16508 - 18572, n=9)
18252 Points ∼62% +11%
Average of class Smartphone (2465 - 113380, n=493)
15751 Points ∼54% -5%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
15466 Points ∼59%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
26175 Points ∼100% +69%
JVC J20
16948 Points ∼65% +10%
LG Q7 Plus
9710 Points ∼37% -37%
Honor View 10
20022 Points ∼76% +29%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (15466 - 17030, n=9)
16739 Points ∼64% +8%
Average of class Smartphone (2915 - 64405, n=494)
13614 Points ∼52% -12%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
30 fps ∼24%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
46 fps ∼37% +53%
JVC J20
29 fps ∼23% -3%
LG Q7 Plus
17 fps ∼14% -43%
Honor View 10
125 fps ∼100% +317%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (29 - 30, n=9)
29.8 fps ∼24% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 177, n=519)
27.6 fps ∼22% -8%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
30 fps ∼51%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
51 fps ∼86% +70%
JVC J20
28 fps ∼47% -7%
LG Q7 Plus
16 fps ∼27% -47%
Honor View 10
59 fps ∼100% +97%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (28 - 31, n=9)
29.8 fps ∼51% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (6.9 - 120, n=522)
23.7 fps ∼40% -21%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
14 fps ∼21%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
23 fps ∼35% +64%
JVC J20
14 fps ∼21% 0%
LG Q7 Plus
7.1 fps ∼11% -49%
Honor View 10
66 fps ∼100% +371%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (14 - 14, n=9)
14 fps ∼21% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 88.2, n=442)
14.6 fps ∼22% +4%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
14 fps ∼25%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
22 fps ∼40% +57%
JVC J20
13 fps ∼24% -7%
LG Q7 Plus
6.8 fps ∼12% -51%
Honor View 10
55 fps ∼100% +293%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (13 - 15, n=9)
14.2 fps ∼26% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (4.4 - 115, n=444)
14.7 fps ∼27% +5%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
10 fps ∼48%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
15 fps ∼71% +50%
JVC J20
9.7 fps ∼46% -3%
LG Q7 Plus
4.7 fps ∼22% -53%
Honor View 10
21 fps ∼100% +110%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (5.2 - 10, n=9)
9.24 fps ∼44% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (1.3 - 60, n=306)
12.6 fps ∼60% +26%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
9.8 fps ∼27%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
14 fps ∼39% +43%
JVC J20
9.2 fps ∼26% -6%
LG Q7 Plus
4.5 fps ∼13% -54%
Honor View 10
36 fps ∼100% +267%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (9.2 - 11, n=9)
9.97 fps ∼28% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (2.6 - 110, n=308)
12.6 fps ∼35% +29%
GFXBench
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
5.6 fps ∼27%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
9.1 fps ∼43% +63%
JVC J20
5.5 fps ∼26% -2%
LG Q7 Plus
2.5 fps ∼12% -55%
Honor View 10
21 fps ∼100% +275%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (5.3 - 5.6, n=9)
5.49 fps ∼26% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (0.72 - 2055, n=239)
17.2 fps ∼82% +207%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10
6 fps ∼29%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
8.6 fps ∼41% +43%
JVC J20
5.2 fps ∼25% -13%
LG Q7 Plus
2.4 fps ∼11% -60%
Honor View 10
21 fps ∼100% +250%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (5.2 - 6, n=9)
5.64 fps ∼27% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (1.1 - 1827, n=242)
15.4 fps ∼73% +157%

Legend

 
Sharp Aquos C10 Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Qualcomm Adreno 508, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Qualcomm Adreno 512, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
JVC J20 Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Qualcomm Adreno 508, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
LG Q7 Plus Mediatek MT6750S, ARM Mali-T860 MP2, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
Honor View 10 HiSilicon Kirin 970, ARM Mali-G72 MP12, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro (Chrome 67)
49.396 Points ∼100% +75%
Honor View 10 (Chrome 63)
34.871 Points ∼71% +23%
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 224, n=375)
33.3 Points ∼67% +18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (27.4 - 30.8, n=9)
28.4 Points ∼57% 0%
Sharp Aquos C10 (Chrome 68)
28.27 Points ∼57%
JVC J20 (Chrome 68)
28.25 Points ∼57% 0%
LG Q7 Plus (Chrome 67)
18.694 Points ∼38% -34%
Octane V2 - Total Score
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro (Chrome 67)
9582 Points ∼100% +84%
Honor View 10 (Chrome 63)
6729 Points ∼70% +29%
Sharp Aquos C10 (Chrome 68)
5202 Points ∼54%
JVC J20 (Chrome 68)
5117 Points ∼53% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 35255, n=511)
4995 Points ∼52% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (4398 - 5202, n=9)
4943 Points ∼52% -5%
LG Q7 Plus (Chrome 67)
3422 Points ∼36% -34%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
LG Q7 Plus (Chrome 67)
13670.9 ms * ∼100% -43%
Average of class Smartphone (718 - 59466, n=530)
11913 ms * ∼87% -25%
JVC J20 (Chrome 68)
9660 ms * ∼71% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (8396 - 10236, n=9)
9587 ms * ∼70% -1%
Sharp Aquos C10 (Chrome 68)
9532.6 ms * ∼70%
Honor View 10 (Chrome 63)
6013 ms * ∼44% +37%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro (Chrome 67)
4093.5 ms * ∼30% +57%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro (Chrome 67)
159 Points ∼100% +37%
Honor View 10 (Chrome 63)
157 Points ∼99% +35%
Sharp Aquos C10 (Chrome 68)
116 Points ∼73%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (86 - 117, n=8)
105 Points ∼66% -9%
Average of class Smartphone (27 - 362, n=250)
100 Points ∼63% -14%
LG Q7 Plus (Chrome 67)
70 Points ∼44% -40%

* ... smaller is better

Sharp Aquos C10BQ Aquaris X2 ProJVC J20LG Q7 PlusHonor View 10Average 64 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-1%
-8%
-14%
205%
-9%
-31%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
60.7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
61.13 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
1%
63 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
4%
62.2 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
2%
65.06 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
7%
52.6 (14.1 - 74.7, n=57)
-13%
43.9 (3.4 - 87.1, n=289)
-28%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
83 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
83.35 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
0%
82.8 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
0%
81.45 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-2%
81 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-2%
71.8 (21.1 - 86.9, n=57)
-13%
62.4 (8.2 - 96.5, n=289)
-25%
Random Write 4KB
16.9
15.43
-9%
6.3
-63%
11.91
-30%
160
847%
17 (3.4 - 77.9, n=65)
1%
13.8 (0.14 - 164, n=568)
-18%
Random Read 4KB
48.2
51.25
6%
58.3
21%
35.8
-26%
144.3
199%
48.1 (11.4 - 149, n=65)
0%
35.1 (1.59 - 173, n=568)
-27%
Sequential Write 256KB
213.4
204.83
-4%
199.7
-6%
186.55
-13%
194.3
-9%
159 (40 - 216, n=65)
-25%
73.5 (2.99 - 228, n=568)
-66%
Sequential Read 256KB
283.8
280.78
-1%
270.6
-5%
235.9
-17%
810.3
186%
268 (115 - 704, n=65)
-6%
215 (12.1 - 895, n=568)
-24%
Arena of Valor
 ConfiguraçõesValor
 min31 fps
 high HD30 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Shadow Fight 3
 ConfiguraçõesValor
 high56 fps
 minimal55 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Carga Máxima
 40.1 °C38.9 °C38.7 °C 
 40.4 °C39.1 °C39.9 °C 
 39.2 °C39.1 °C38.2 °C 
Máximo: 40.4 °C
Médio: 39.3 °C
37.4 °C38.5 °C40.9 °C
37.2 °C38.2 °C42.8 °C
37.4 °C38.1 °C42.2 °C
Máximo: 42.8 °C
Médio: 39.2 °C
alimentação elétrica  42.1 °C | Temperatura do quarto 22.2 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2032332531.931.23131.7314031.128.15036.235.46326.326.58022.224.710022.522.912525.425.216018.931.420017.140.125016.944.23151448.540013.55650013.857.363012.559.380012.157.4100011.462.6125011.265.616001168.6200010.870250010.569.3315010.868400010.367.3500010.368.6630010.468.6800010.564.31000010.461.51250010.357.51600010.441.4SPL64.65370.765.523.879N16.87.52718.20.541.3median 11.2Sharp Aquos C10median 59.3Delta2.512.338.138.637.637.235.936.428.130.828.627.627.824.129.824.230.425.422.227.223.9342041.319.445.517.247.816.454.816.556.915.159.615.161.114.662.514.467.313.772.712.373.812.173.411.871.411.767.811.76111.657.811.652.111.556.311.55311.642.966.356.725.98116.810.40.840.9median 14.4JVC J20median 56.93.39.5hearing rangehide median Pink Noise
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Sharp Aquos C10 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (79 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.6% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 29% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 59% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 58% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 34% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

JVC J20 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 7.2% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.5% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (8.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (25.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 50% of all tested devices in this class were better, 13% similar, 37% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 72% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 21% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Consumo de energia
desligadodarklight 0.05 / 0.2 Watt
Ociosodarkmidlight 0.9 / 2.2 / 3.8 Watt
Carga midlight 6.2 / 8 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Sharp Aquos C10
2700 mAh
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
3100 mAh
JVC J20
3400 mAh
LG Q7 Plus
3000 mAh
Honor View 10
3750 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
21%
21%
27%
4%
30%
27%
Idle Minimum *
0.9
0.63
30%
1
-11%
1
-11%
1.05
-17%
0.67 (0.35 - 1, n=10)
26%
0.877 (0.2 - 3.4, n=595)
3%
Idle Average *
2.2
2.16
2%
1.6
27%
1.57
29%
2.36
-7%
1.88 (1.51 - 2.31, n=10)
15%
1.714 (0.6 - 6.2, n=594)
22%
Idle Maximum *
3.8
2.18
43%
2.8
26%
1.64
57%
2.41
37%
2.19 (1.57 - 3.8, n=10)
42%
1.984 (0.74 - 6.6, n=595)
48%
Load Average *
6.2
4.48
28%
4
35%
4.1
34%
4.93
20%
3.9 (2.82 - 6.2, n=10)
37%
4.02 (0.8 - 10.8, n=589)
35%
Load Maximum *
8
7.87
2%
5.9
26%
6.02
25%
9.04
-13%
5.69 (4.56 - 8, n=10)
29%
5.67 (1.2 - 14.2, n=589)
29%

* ... smaller is better

Tempo de Execução da Bateria
Ocioso (sem WLAN, min brilho)
23h 45min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
11h 12min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
12h 15min
Carga (máximo brilho)
4h 27min
Sharp Aquos C10
2700 mAh
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro
3100 mAh
JVC J20
3400 mAh
LG Q7 Plus
3000 mAh
Honor View 10
3750 mAh
Battery Runtime
-18%
8%
-23%
11%
Reader / Idle
1425
1374
-4%
980
-31%
1671
17%
H.264
735
658
-10%
455
-38%
819
11%
WiFi v1.3
672
605
-10%
726
8%
620
-8%
679
1%
Load
267
145
-46%
230
-14%
305
14%

Pro

+ Tela brilhante
+ Fotos nítidas da câmera
+ Boa duração da bateria
+ Sem bloatware
+ Operação rápida
+ WLAN veloz

Contra

- Qualidade de voz medíocre
- Sem porta de áudio de 3,5 mm
- Poucas bandas LTE
- Afogamentos sob uso estendido
In review: Sharp Aquos C10. Test unit provided by notebooksbilliger.de
In review: Sharp Aquos C10. Test unit provided by notebooksbilliger.de

O retorno da Sharp ao mercado ocidental de smartphones é uma tarefa difícil, e, com o Sharp Aquos C10, ela consegue, na primeira tentativa, lançar um sólido dispositivo de gama média no mercado. O smartphone pode convencer com uma tela brilhante, boas câmeras, uma duração de bateria decente e uma WLAN rápida. O desempenho é totalmente suficiente, e o smartphone Sharp parece rápido no geral. No entanto, existem alguns smartphones nessa faixa de preço que trazem significativamente mais potência. Além disso, o Sharp Aquos C10 se afoga visivelmente durante cargas mais longas.

Com o Aquos C10, a Sharp consegue uma boa reentrada no mercado ocidental. Particularmente, as câmeras, a velocidade WLAN e a duração da bateria, são convincentes.

Por outro lado, um comprador em potencial pode ficar incomodado com a falta de uma porta de 3,5 mm, a qualidade de voz medíocre e, é claro, o nível que representa um obstáculo para alguns. Aqueles que podem apreciar o formato incomum do Sharp Aquos C10 e não precisam de tanto poder, terão um bom smartphone que nem todos têm.

Sharp Aquos C10 - 08/20/2018 v6
Florian Wimmer

Acabamento
77%
Teclado
67 / 75 → 89%
Mouse
90%
Conectividade
46 / 60 → 76%
Peso
93%
Bateria
94%
Pantalha
84%
Desempenho do jogos
34 / 63 → 53%
Desempenho da aplicação
46 / 70 → 66%
Temperatura
88%
Ruído
100%
Audio
54 / 91 → 59%
Camera
76%
Médio
73%
84%
Smartphone - Médio equilibrado

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Análises e revisões de portáteis e celulares > Análises > Análises > Breve Análise do Smartphone Sharp Aquos C10
Florian Wimmer, 2018-08-28 (Update: 2018-09-11)