Notebookcheck

Breve Análise do Smartphone Xiaomi Black Shark

Florian Wimmer, 👁 Florian Schmitt, Tanja Hinum-Balaz (traduzido por Ricardo Soto), 07/24/2018

A gamer's dream come true? O telefone para jogos Xiaomi Black Shark oferece um sistema de resfriamento a água, uma carcaça de metal em um design industrial e um gamepad opcional. Será que os jogadores devem ficar de olhos nebulosos com relação a esse telefone ou apenas os excêntricos o importarão da China? Descubra em nossa análise.

Xiaomi Black Shark
Placa gráfica
Memória
6144 MB 
Pantalha
5.99 polegadas 2:1, 2160 x 1080 pixel 403 PPI, Tela táctil capacitiva, IPS, Brilhante: sim
Disco rígido
64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 64 GB 
, 58 GB livre
Conexões
1 USB 2.0, Conexões Audio: Saída de áudio via USB-C, 1 Leitor de Impressões Digitais, Brightness Sensor, Sensores: sensor de aceleração, giroscópio, sensor de proximidade, 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 (850/900/1900/2100MHz), LTE (1/3/4/5/7/8/12/38/39/40/41)), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Tamanho
altura x largura x profundidade (em mm): 9.3 x 161.6 x 75.4
Bateria
15.2 Wh, 4000 mAh Lítio-Ion, Quick Charge 3.0
Sistema Operativo
Android 8.0 Oreo
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix f/​1.75, phase detection AF, dual LED flash, videos @2160p/​30fps (main camera); 20.0MP, f/​1.75, depth of field (secondary camera)
Secondary Camera: 20 MPix f/​2.2, videos @1080p/​30fps
Características adicionais
Alto falantes: Alto-falante na borda inferior, Teclado: Teclado virtual, Fonte de alimetação, cabo USB, adaptador USB-C-para-3,5mm, ferramenta SIM, bumper, panos de limpeza, LTE Cat. 18: up to 1.2 GBit/s (download), 200 MBit/s (upload); SAR value 0.523 W/kg (head), fanless
peso
190 g, Suprimento de energia: 68 g
Preço
419 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Xiaomi Black Shark Gaming Phone
Xiaomi Black Shark Gaming Phone
Xiaomi Black Shark Gaming Phone
Xiaomi Black Shark Gaming Phone
Xiaomi Black Shark Gaming Phone
Xiaomi Black Shark Gaming Phone
Xiaomi Black Shark Gaming Phone

Size Comparison

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Razer Phone 2017
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
665 MBit/s ∼100% +473%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
652 MBit/s ∼98% +462%
OnePlus 6
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
609 MBit/s ∼92% +425%
Honor 10
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
210 MBit/s ∼32% +81%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=302)
210 MBit/s ∼32% +81%
Xiaomi Black Shark
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
116 MBit/s ∼17%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Razer Phone 2017
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
661 MBit/s ∼100% +465%
OnePlus 6
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
612 MBit/s ∼93% +423%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
519 MBit/s ∼79% +344%
Honor 10
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
236 MBit/s ∼36% +102%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=302)
205 MBit/s ∼31% +75%
Xiaomi Black Shark
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
117 MBit/s ∼18%
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
GPS Xiaomi Black Shark – Overview
GPS Xiaomi Black Shark – Overview
GPS Xiaomi Black Shark – Grove
GPS Xiaomi Black Shark – Grove
GPS Xiaomi Black Shark – Bridge
GPS Xiaomi Black Shark – 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
526
cd/m²
531
cd/m²
551
cd/m²
539
cd/m²
549
cd/m²
549
cd/m²
543
cd/m²
550
cd/m²
530
cd/m²
Distribuição do brilho
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Máximo: 551 cd/m² Médio: 540.9 cd/m² Minimum: 2.4 cd/m²
iluminação: 95 %
iluminação com acumulador: 549 cd/m²
Contraste: 1307:1 (Preto: 0.42 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.08 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.2
ΔE Greyscale 6.6 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
100% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.305
Xiaomi Black Shark
IPS, 2160x1080, 5.99
Razer Phone 2017
IGZO LCD, 120 Hz, Wide Color Gamut, 1440x2560, 5.72
OnePlus 6
Optic AMOLED, 2280x1080, 6.28
Honor 10
IPS, 2280x1080, 5.84
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.2
Screen
25%
22%
20%
33%
Brightness middle
549
436
-21%
430
-22%
555
1%
565
3%
Brightness
541
417
-23%
437
-19%
537
-1%
571
6%
Brightness Distribution
95
92
-3%
87
-8%
94
-1%
96
1%
Black Level *
0.42
0.16
62%
0.39
7%
Contrast
1307
2725
108%
1423
9%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
6.08
3.88
36%
2.3
62%
2.3
62%
2.3
62%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
10.69
7.96
26%
4.6
57%
6
44%
4.8
55%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
6.6
5.8
12%
2.4
64%
3.9
41%
1.9
71%
Gamma
2.305 95%
2.45 90%
2.28 96%
2.19 100%
2.16 102%
CCT
8399 77%
7657 85%
6160 106%
6212 105%
6332 103%

* ... 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 2358 Hz ≤ 15 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 2358 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 15 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 2358 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8955 (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
40 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 23 ms rise
↘ 17 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 96 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (25.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
48 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 25 ms rise
↘ 23 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. » 78 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (41 ms).
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
230642 Points ∼100%
OnePlus 6
230421 Points ∼100% 0%
Honor 10
174272 Points ∼76% -24%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
222290 Points ∼96% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (162183 - 242953, n=18)
223967 Points ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (23275 - 254229, n=386)
76035 Points ∼33% -67%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
290397 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
208972 Points ∼72% -28%
OnePlus 6
266686 Points ∼92% -8%
Honor 10
205297 Points ∼71% -29%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
250577 Points ∼86% -14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (246366 - 299878, n=22)
275958 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (17073 - 348178, n=169)
118333 Points ∼41% -59%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
8309 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
7046 Points ∼85% -15%
OnePlus 6
8282 Points ∼100% 0%
Honor 10
7046 Points ∼85% -15%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
5319 Points ∼64% -36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (8326 - 9868, n=22)
8018 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (3146 - 9868, n=254)
4550 Points ∼55% -45%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
7968 Points ∼79%
OnePlus 6
9630 Points ∼95%
Honor 10
8530 Points ∼84%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
5822 Points ∼58%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7998 - 13211, n=20)
10123 Points ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone (6412 - 13531, n=422)
4954 Points ∼49%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
1243 Points ∼90%
Razer Phone 2017
1225 Points ∼88% -1%
OnePlus 6
1386 Points ∼100% +12%
Honor 10
1316 Points ∼95% +6%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
1109 Points ∼80% -11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (1009 - 1613, n=20)
1348 Points ∼97% +8%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1731, n=498)
698 Points ∼50% -44%
Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
5846 Points ∼74%
Razer Phone 2017
6273 Points ∼79% +7%
OnePlus 6
7949 Points ∼100% +36%
Honor 10
4397 Points ∼55% -25%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
6370 Points ∼80% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5846 - 8001, n=20)
7816 Points ∼98% +34%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 15969, n=498)
1738 Points ∼22% -70%
Memory (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
2871 Points ∼70%
Razer Phone 2017
4085 Points ∼100% +42%
OnePlus 6
3799 Points ∼93% +32%
Honor 10
3808 Points ∼93% +33%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2625 Points ∼64% -9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2193 - 5296, n=20)
3594 Points ∼88% +25%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 6283, n=498)
1244 Points ∼30% -57%
System (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
7105 Points ∼86%
Razer Phone 2017
5660 Points ∼69% -20%
OnePlus 6
8228 Points ∼100% +16%
Honor 10
5882 Points ∼71% -17%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
6413 Points ∼78% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4417 - 8613, n=20)
7657 Points ∼93% +8%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 12202, n=498)
2508 Points ∼30% -65%
Overall (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
3489 Points ∼81%
Razer Phone 2017
3651 Points ∼85% +5%
OnePlus 6
4308 Points ∼100% +23%
Honor 10
3374 Points ∼78% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3302 Points ∼77% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3291 - 4693, n=20)
4099 Points ∼95% +17%
Average of class Smartphone (150 - 6097, n=502)
1254 Points ∼29% -64%
Geekbench 4.1/4.2
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
13620 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
7931 Points ∼58% -42%
Honor 10
8634 Points ∼63% -37%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
6202 Points ∼45% -54%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (10876 - 14489, n=19)
13635 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (836 - 21070, n=196)
4525 Points ∼33% -67%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
8453 Points ∼94%
Razer Phone 2017
6742 Points ∼75% -20%
Honor 10
6610 Points ∼74% -22%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
8963 Points ∼100% +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7754 - 9231, n=21)
8655 Points ∼97% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (883 - 11598, n=246)
4306 Points ∼48% -49%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
2437 Points ∼65%
Razer Phone 2017
1942 Points ∼51% -20%
Honor 10
1890 Points ∼50% -22%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3776 Points ∼100% +55%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2272 - 2500, n=21)
2417 Points ∼64% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (394 - 4824, n=247)
1269 Points ∼34% -48%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
3408 Points ∼99%
Razer Phone 2017
3157 Points ∼92% -7%
OnePlus 6
3432 Points ∼100% +1%
Honor 10
2582 Points ∼75% -24%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2469 Points ∼72% -28%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2118 - 3703, n=21)
3268 Points ∼95% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (2281 - 4216, n=351)
1640 Points ∼48% -52%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
5220 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
4049 Points ∼78% -22%
OnePlus 6
5212 Points ∼100% 0%
Honor 10
2993 Points ∼57% -43%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3582 Points ∼69% -31%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3488 - 5241, n=21)
4944 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (815 - 5241, n=351)
1187 Points ∼23% -77%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
4668 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
3810 Points ∼82% -18%
OnePlus 6
4673 Points ∼100% 0%
Honor 10
2891 Points ∼62% -38%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3256 Points ∼70% -30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3197 - 4734, n=21)
4424 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (951 - 4734, n=359)
1134 Points ∼24% -76%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
3443 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
3092 Points ∼90% -10%
OnePlus 6
3452 Points ∼100% 0%
Honor 10
2773 Points ∼80% -19%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2496 Points ∼72% -28%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2159 - 3668, n=21)
3129 Points ∼91% -9%
Average of class Smartphone (532 - 4215, n=383)
1538 Points ∼45% -55%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
8312 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
6127 Points ∼74% -26%
OnePlus 6
8252 Points ∼99% -1%
Honor 10
3573 Points ∼43% -57%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
4637 Points ∼56% -44%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5637 - 8312, n=21)
7818 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (46 - 8312, n=383)
1632 Points ∼20% -80%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
6324 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
5030 Points ∼80% -20%
OnePlus 6
6304 Points ∼100% 0%
Honor 10
3358 Points ∼53% -47%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3895 Points ∼62% -38%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4529 - 6454, n=21)
5843 Points ∼92% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (58 - 6454, n=391)
1387 Points ∼22% -78%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
31384 Points ∼92%
Razer Phone 2017
21521 Points ∼63% -31%
OnePlus 6
34191 Points ∼100% +9%
Honor 10
21070 Points ∼62% -33%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
26226 Points ∼77% -16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (15614 - 37475, n=21)
33400 Points ∼98% +6%
Average of class Smartphone (3958 - 37475, n=538)
12873 Points ∼38% -59%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
82423 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
58360 Points ∼71% -29%
OnePlus 6
81269 Points ∼99% -1%
Honor 10
32674 Points ∼40% -60%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
46610 Points ∼57% -43%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (53794 - 84998, n=21)
80111 Points ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (2465 - 162695, n=538)
17989 Points ∼22% -78%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
60543 Points ∼97%
Razer Phone 2017
42278 Points ∼68% -30%
OnePlus 6
62241 Points ∼100% +3%
Honor 10
29111 Points ∼47% -52%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
39745 Points ∼64% -34%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (34855 - 65330, n=21)
60990 Points ∼98% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (2915 - 77599, n=539)
15106 Points ∼24% -75%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
151 fps ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
117 fps ∼77% -23%
OnePlus 6
150 fps ∼99% -1%
Honor 10
124 fps ∼82% -18%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
147 fps ∼97% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (98 - 152, n=22)
144 fps ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 251, n=564)
31.4 fps ∼21% -79%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
60 fps ∼76%
Razer Phone 2017
79 fps ∼100% +32%
OnePlus 6
60 fps ∼76% 0%
Honor 10
59 fps ∼75% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
60 fps ∼76% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (58 - 89, n=21)
62.7 fps ∼79% +5%
Average of class Smartphone (6.9 - 120, n=567)
25 fps ∼32% -58%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
82 fps ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
43 fps ∼52% -48%
OnePlus 6
66 fps ∼80% -20%
Honor 10
59 fps ∼72% -28%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
74 fps ∼90% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (54 - 83, n=21)
73 fps ∼89% -11%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 132, n=486)
16.8 fps ∼20% -80%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
59 fps ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
40 fps ∼68% -32%
OnePlus 6
58 fps ∼98% -2%
Honor 10
50 fps ∼85% -15%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
45 fps ∼76% -24%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (35 - 75, n=21)
55 fps ∼93% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 115, n=489)
16 fps ∼27% -73%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
60 fps ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
21 fps ∼35% -65%
OnePlus 6
56 fps ∼93% -7%
Honor 10
39 fps ∼65% -35%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
47 fps ∼78% -22%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (32 - 61, n=22)
54.4 fps ∼91% -9%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 88, n=349)
14.3 fps ∼24% -76%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
53 fps ∼98%
Razer Phone 2017
22 fps ∼41% -58%
OnePlus 6
54 fps ∼100% +2%
Honor 10
34 fps ∼63% -36%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
24 fps ∼44% -55%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (25 - 59, n=21)
46.5 fps ∼86% -12%
Average of class Smartphone (9.8 - 110, n=352)
13.9 fps ∼26% -74%
GFXBench
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
35 fps ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
25 fps ∼71% -29%
OnePlus 6
35 fps ∼100% 0%
Honor 10
23 fps ∼66% -34%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
28 fps ∼80% -20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (25 - 35, n=21)
34 fps ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (6.3 - 54, n=280)
9.86 fps ∼28% -72%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
31 fps ∼97%
Razer Phone 2017
15 fps ∼47% -52%
OnePlus 6
32 fps ∼100% +3%
Honor 10
20 fps ∼63% -35%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
14 fps ∼44% -55%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (17 - 37, n=21)
28.3 fps ∼88% -9%
Average of class Smartphone (6 - 58, n=283)
8.89 fps ∼28% -71%

Legend

 
Xiaomi Black Shark Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Razer Phone 2017 Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
OnePlus 6 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Honor 10 HiSilicon Kirin 970, ARM Mali-G72 MP12, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus Samsung Exynos 9810, ARM Mali-G72 MP18, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
Octane V2 - Total Score
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
17026 Points ∼100% +25%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3991 - 18275, n=22)
15431 Points ∼91% +13%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
15233 Points ∼89% +11%
Xiaomi Black Shark (Firefox 61)
13663 Points ∼80%
Razer Phone 2017 (Chrome 65)
12600 Points ∼74% -8%
Honor 10 (Chrome 66)
10965 Points ∼64% -20%
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 43280, n=556)
5550 Points ∼33% -59%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (603 - 59466, n=577)
11486 ms * ∼100% -402%
Honor 10 (Chrome 66)
3899 ms * ∼34% -70%
Razer Phone 2017 (Chrome 65)
3476 ms * ∼30% -52%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2154 - 11204, n=22)
2874 ms * ∼25% -26%
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
2445 ms * ∼21% -7%
Xiaomi Black Shark (Firefox 61)
2287 ms * ∼20%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
2077.8 ms * ∼18% +9%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
252 Points ∼100% +2%
Xiaomi Black Shark (Firefox 61)
246 Points ∼98%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (260 - 291, n=21)
233 Points ∼92% -5%
Honor 10 (Chrome 66)
182 Points ∼72% -26%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
163 Points ∼65% -34%
Average of class Smartphone (91 - 362, n=283)
111 Points ∼44% -55%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
98 Points ∼100% +9%
Xiaomi Black Shark (Firefox 61)
90 Points ∼92%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (19 - 103, n=15)
84.5 Points ∼86% -6%
Honor 10 (Chrome 66)
69 Points ∼70% -23%
Average of class Smartphone (25 - 161, n=62)
63.6 Points ∼65% -29%
Samsung Galaxy S9
63 Points ∼64% -30%

* ... smaller is better

Xiaomi Black SharkRazer Phone 2017OnePlus 6Honor 10Samsung Galaxy S9 PlusAverage 64 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-19%
-19%
17%
-16%
-14%
-71%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
52.5
67.18 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
50.2 (17.1 - 71.9, n=25)
45.4 (3.4 - 87.1, n=316)
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
79.4
79.22 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
66.4 (18 - 86.6, n=25)
63.7 (8.2 - 96.5, n=316)
Random Write 4KB
114.1
14.3
-87%
21.8
-81%
163
43%
22.74
-80%
50.5 (8.77 - 156, n=34)
-56%
16.1 (0.14 - 164, n=606)
-86%
Random Read 4KB
127.2
142.5
12%
137
8%
145.88
15%
129.68
2%
134 (78.2 - 173, n=34)
5%
38.3 (1.59 - 173, n=606)
-70%
Sequential Write 256KB
199.6
202.5
1%
201.4
1%
192.12
-4%
204.94
3%
193 (133 - 229, n=34)
-3%
79.7 (2.99 - 246, n=606)
-60%
Sequential Read 256KB
741.5
732.3
-1%
725.6
-2%
827.69
12%
818.69
10%
727 (529 - 895, n=34)
-2%
230 (12.1 - 895, n=606)
-69%
Arena of Valor
 ConfiguraçõesValor
 high HD60 fps
 high HD60 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Minecraft - Pocket Edition
 ConfiguraçõesValor
 fancy graphics, beautiful skies, 74% viewing range60 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Carga Máxima
 49.5 °C45.3 °C43.7 °C 
 45.8 °C44.9 °C43.5 °C 
 45.6 °C45.2 °C43.3 °C 
Máximo: 49.5 °C
Médio: 45.2 °C
40.1 °C41.8 °C43.2 °C
40.4 °C42.2 °C43.6 °C
40.5 °C41.9 °C43.3 °C
Máximo: 43.6 °C
Médio: 41.9 °C
alimentação elétrica  40.1 °C | Temperatura do quarto 22 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 45.2 °C / 113 F, compared to the average of 33.2 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 49.5 °C / 121 F, compared to the average of 35.7 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 43.6 °C / 110 F, compared to the average of 34.2 °C / 94 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 30.9 °C / 88 F, compared to the device average of 33.2 °C / 92 F.
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2032.736.52530.134.83130.534.44031.134.75033.737.76326.736.18024.235.110022.928.612519.430.816018.141.820017.750.425016.554.331514.255.940013.659.750013.76163012.463.280012.463.71000126412501262.3160011.563.1200011.661.4250011.457.6315011.355.6400011.353.5500011.359.8630011.561.6800011.561.71000011.556.41250011.454.71600011.352.2SPL52.324.272.9N8.80.632.2median 12median 57.6Delta1.6629.525.929.526.427.726.426.526.526.526.628.326.625.525.225.523.922.723.926.523.626.533.623.333.640.230.540.245.821.145.852.420.652.455.322.955.357.921.157.960.921.560.964.822.364.869.117.569.171.520.171.569.719.969.77018.27069.51669.570.715.770.771.614.871.669.614.569.666.914.266.968146867.813.867.868.913.968.966.51466.562.71462.758.613.858.681.229.381.251.51.251.5median 66.9median 17.5median 66.97.13.57.1hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseXiaomi Black SharkRazer Phone 2017
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Xiaomi Black Shark audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (72.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 14% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (6.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (14.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 0% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 99% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 13% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 84% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Razer Phone 2017 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 19.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (14.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 1% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 15% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 81% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Consumo de energia
desligadodarklight 0.05 / 0.1 Watt
Ociosodarkmidlight 0.8 / 1.5 / 2.3 Watt
Carga midlight 4.8 / 10.1 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Xiaomi Black Shark
4000 mAh
Razer Phone 2017
4000 mAh
OnePlus 6
3300 mAh
Honor 10
3400 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3500 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-7%
23%
-15%
32%
1%
9%
Idle Minimum *
0.8
0.83
-4%
0.6
25%
1.12
-40%
0.68
15%
0.802 (0.42 - 1.8, n=19)
-0%
0.881 (0.2 - 3.4, n=634)
-10%
Idle Average *
1.5
2.11
-41%
1
33%
2.26
-51%
0.95
37%
1.722 (0.67 - 2.9, n=19)
-15%
1.721 (0.6 - 6.2, n=633)
-15%
Idle Maximum *
2.3
2.24
3%
1.6
30%
2.3
-0%
1.09
53%
2.1 (0.87 - 3.5, n=19)
9%
1.998 (0.74 - 6.6, n=634)
13%
Load Average *
4.8
4.94
-3%
4.3
10%
5.14
-7%
4.58
5%
4.79 (3.64 - 7.2, n=19)
-0%
4.03 (0.8 - 10.8, n=628)
16%
Load Maximum *
10.1
9.08
10%
8.6
15%
7.89
22%
5.16
49%
9.2 (6.2 - 12.3, n=19)
9%
5.75 (1.2 - 14.2, n=628)
43%

* ... smaller is better

Tempo de Execução da Bateria
Ocioso (sem WLAN, min brilho)
29h 13min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
11h 51min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
12h 27min
Carga (máximo brilho)
4h 13min
Xiaomi Black Shark
4000 mAh
Razer Phone 2017
4000 mAh
OnePlus 6
3300 mAh
Honor 10
3400 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3500 mAh
Battery Runtime
7%
3%
-17%
-17%
Reader / Idle
1753
1806
3%
1162
-34%
1343
-23%
H.264
747
791
6%
662
-11%
674
-10%
WiFi v1.3
711
762
7%
762
7%
663
-7%
521
-27%
Load
253
246
-3%
216
-15%
237
-6%

Pro

+ Extremamente veloz
+ Preço baixo
+ Chassi de alta qualidade e extravagante
+ Tela com alta cobertura de espaço de cores
+ Tela brilhante
+ Boas câmeras
+ Alto desempenho de jogos
+ Longa duração da bateria

Contra

- Sem tela de alta taxa de quadros
- Wi-Fi lento
- Sem slot microSD
- Sem porta de áudio de 3,5 mm
- Falta de bandas LTE para a Europa
- Sem garantia
- Forte aquecimento sob uso intenso
- Tela com tempos lentos de resposta
- Software somente disponível em inglês
In review: The Xiaomi Black Shark gaming phone. Review unit courtesy of Trading Shenzhen Shop.
In review: The Xiaomi Black Shark gaming phone. Review unit courtesy of Trading Shenzhen Shop.

Dado o fato de que o Xiaomi Black Shark não está disponível como uma versão global por enquanto, outros telefones de jogos são definitivamente uma opção mais razoável para os clientes europeus: O Black Shark exige que o usuário instale os serviços do Google manualmente, e o software só está disponível em inglês com partes de chinês. É questionável se o usuário pode se conectar à rede LTE europeia. O Wi-Fi é lento e a garantia está ausente.

Mas desde quando jogar é razoável? O Xiaomi Black Shark é extremamente estiloso, e é um dos smartphones mais velozes até hoje, alcançando facilmente 60 fps, mesmo nos jogos mais exigentes. Também é relativamente barato, o que torna tudo isto não tão irracional depois de tudo.

O Xiaomi Black Shark não é um smartphone de jogos para todos, mas é um dispositivo excepcional com muita potência e uma ótima carcaça.

Em comparação direta com o Razer Phone 2017, a desvantagem mais importante do Black Shark é o máximo de fps mais baixos da tela. O Razer Phone é um pacote geral mais completo. No entanto, os usuários chamarão mais a atenção com o exótico dispositivo de jogos da Xiaomi, então podemos definitivamente recomendá-lo para jogadores que preferem um toque de individualidade e que não se importam de ter que mexer um pouco no software do seu dispositivo.

Xiaomi Black Shark - 07/13/2018 v6
Florian Wimmer

Acabamento
90%
Teclado
66 / 75 → 88%
Mouse
89%
Conectividade
40 / 60 → 66%
Peso
89%
Bateria
94%
Pantalha
85%
Desempenho do jogos
64 / 63 → 100%
Desempenho da aplicação
66 / 70 → 94%
Temperatura
83%
Ruído
100%
Audio
64 / 91 → 70%
Camera
77%
Médio
77%
86%
Smartphone - Médio equilibrado

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Análises e revisões de portáteis e celulares > Análises > Análises > Breve Análise do Smartphone Xiaomi Black Shark
Florian Wimmer, 2018-07-24 (Update: 2018-08- 1)