Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarBreve Análise do Smartphone Vivo IQOO
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Google Pixel 3a XL | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| Nokia 8.1 | |
| Sony Xperia 10 Plus | |
| Vivo IQOO | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| Google Pixel 3a XL | |
| Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
| Sony Xperia 10 Plus | |
| Nokia 8.1 | |
| Vivo IQOO | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 98 %
iluminação com acumulador: 612 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.37 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 4.8 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
99.4% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.255
| Vivo IQOO AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.41 | Sony Xperia 10 Plus IPS, 2520x1080, 6.50 | Xiaomi Mi 9 AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.39 | Nokia 8.1 IPS, 2246x1080, 6.18 | Google Pixel 3a XL OLED, 2160x1080, 6.00 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -13% | 37% | 4% | 26% | |
| Brightness middle | 612 | 572 -7% | 593 -3% | 567 -7% | 409 -33% |
| Brightness | 618 | 580 -6% | 587 -5% | 547 -11% | 410 -34% |
| Brightness Distribution | 98 | 96 -2% | 94 -4% | 92 -6% | 96 -2% |
| Black Level * | 0.4 | 0.61 | |||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 5.37 | 4.5 16% | 0.9 83% | 4.39 18% | 1.3 76% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 10.65 | 12.2 -15% | 2 81% | 7.28 32% | 2.3 78% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 4.8 | 7.9 -65% | 1.5 69% | 4.9 -2% | 1.5 69% |
| Gamma | 2.255 98% | 2.16 102% | 2.27 97% | 2.248 98% | 2.22 99% |
| CCT | 7440 87% | 8726 74% | 6548 99% | 7642 85% | 6621 98% |
| Contrast | 1430 | 930 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 219 Hz |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 219 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 219 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 13 % 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 | ||
| 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 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 13 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms). | ||
| GFXBench 3.0 | |
| on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
| Vivo IQOO | |
| Sony Xperia 10 Plus | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| Nokia 8.1 | |
| Google Pixel 3a XL | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (46 - 85, n=20) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 165, n=185, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Vivo IQOO | |
| Sony Xperia 10 Plus | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| Nokia 8.1 | |
| Google Pixel 3a XL | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (50 - 102, n=20) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (9.2 - 363, n=185, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Vivo IQOO | |
| Sony Xperia 10 Plus | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| Nokia 8.1 | |
| Google Pixel 3a XL | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (27 - 58, n=20) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 158, n=185, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Vivo IQOO | |
| Sony Xperia 10 Plus | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| Nokia 8.1 | |
| Google Pixel 3a XL | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (35 - 71, n=20) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.2 - 279, n=185, last 2 years) | |
| AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Vivo IQOO | |
| Sony Xperia 10 Plus | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| Nokia 8.1 | |
| Google Pixel 3a XL | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (217967 - 398720, n=16) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (39 - 304, n=122, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (90 - 129, n=20) | |
| Vivo IQOO (Chrome 74) | |
| Nokia 8.1 (Chrome 71) | |
| Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73) | |
| Sony Xperia 10 Plus (Chrome 73) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 89112, n=213, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (17011 - 33918, n=21) | |
| Vivo IQOO (Chrome 74) | |
| Nokia 8.1 (Chrome 71) | |
| Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73) | |
| Sony Xperia 10 Plus (Chrome 73) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Sony Xperia 10 Plus (Chrome 73) | |
| Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73) | |
| Nokia 8.1 (Chrome 71) | |
| Vivo IQOO (Chrome 74) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (1852 - 2611, n=19) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (388 - 9999, n=173, last 2 years) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (84.4 - 120, n=17) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
| Vivo IQOO (Chrome 74) | |
| Nokia 8.1 (Chrome 71) | |
| Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Vivo IQOO | Sony Xperia 10 Plus | Xiaomi Mi 9 | Nokia 8.1 | Google Pixel 3a XL | Average 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -36% | 154% | -46% | 32% | 114% | 393% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 795 | 280.3 -65% | 666 -16% | 279.3 -65% | 315.6 -60% | 760 ? -4% | 1508 ? 90% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 194.2 | 205.2 6% | 388.3 100% | 203.8 5% | 179.1 -8% | 297 ? 53% | 1118 ? 476% |
| Random Read 4KB | 147.5 | 77.7 -47% | 149.4 1% | 69.9 -53% | 92.1 -38% | 152.9 ? 4% | 247 ? 67% |
| Random Write 4KB | 26.2 | 16.77 -36% | 165.3 531% | 7.3 -72% | 87 232% | 131.6 ? 402% | 272 ? 938% |
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 44.7 °C / 112 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 40.7 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 32.3 °C / 90 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
Vivo IQOO audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (26.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 61% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 33% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 77% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 18% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Xiaomi Mi 9 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 8% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 86% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 27% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 65% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0 / 0.1 Watt |
| Ocioso |  1.2 / 2.2 / 2.6 Watt |
| Carga |
4.8 / 8.5 Watt |
    
| |
| Vivo IQOO 4000 mAh | Sony Xperia 10 Plus 3000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9 3300 mAh | Nokia 8.1 3500 mAh | Google Pixel 3a XL 3700 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 22% | 30% | 33% | 39% | 17% | 16% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 1.2 | 0.68 43% | 0.67 44% | 0.8 33% | 0.7 42% | 0.939 ? 22% | 0.897 ? 25% |
| Idle Average * | 2.2 | 2.12 4% | 1.26 43% | 1.5 32% | 1.63 26% | 1.506 ? 32% | 1.452 ? 34% |
| Idle Maximum * | 2.6 | 2.17 17% | 1.29 50% | 1.8 31% | 1.67 36% | 1.799 ? 31% | 1.629 ? 37% |
| Load Average * | 4.8 | 3.82 20% | 3.71 23% | 3.2 33% | 2.64 45% | 4.61 ? 4% | 5.55 ? -16% |
| Load Maximum * | 8.5 | 6.44 24% | 9.3 -9% | 5.4 36% | 4.62 46% | 9.04 ? -6% | 8.31 ? 2% |
* ... smaller is better
| Vivo IQOO 4000 mAh | Sony Xperia 10 Plus 3000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9 3300 mAh | Nokia 8.1 3500 mAh | Google Pixel 3a XL 3700 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | |||||
| WiFi v1.3 | 1085 | 635 -41% | 546 -50% | 738 -32% | 709 -35% |
Pro
Contra
O Vivo IQOO faz jus ao seu objetivo de ser um smartphone de jogos acessível, apesar de suas deficiências. Sua tela grande e brilhante é envolvente, que a Vivo apoiou com um poderoso SoC. A inclusão de botões laterais sensíveis ao toque é nova, mesmo que não seja essencial. O Xiaomi Mi 9 obtém mais do seu Snapdragon 855 do que o IQOO, mas a nossa unidade de teste lidou com todos os jogos móveis modernos e complexos com facilidade.
O Vivo IQOO é um poderoso smartphone para jogos com um conjunto decente de câmeras, mas você pode ter dificuldade em usá-lo se não puder ler chinês.
A inclusão de uma bateria de 4.000 mAh foi uma medida acertada, já que o IQOO consome mais energia do que seus contemporâneos. O IQOO durará um dia inteiro entre as cargas, embora seu suporte de carga rápida signifique que você não ficará preso à rede por muito tempo.
Além disso, o IQOO possui um conjunto sólido de câmeras, que oferecem bons resultados com boa iluminação. Perversamente, nossas principais queixas com o IQOO nascem de seus pontos fortes. Nossa unidade de teste funciona bem e tem alto consumo de energia, mas esse é frequentemente o compromisso para um desempenho consistente em jogos. O fraco desempenho do Wi-Fi irá afastar alguns gamers, assim como o sistema operacional mal traduzido. Em suma, o Vivo IQOO é um smartphone de jogos discreto que tem muitas coisas a ver com isso. Sua cobertura limitada de LTE e o sistema operacional pesado chinês são o que impedem que ele desafie os melhores smartphones de jogos do mercado.
Vivo IQOO
-
06/20/2019 v6(old)
Mike Wobker