Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarBreve Análise do Smartphone Xiaomi Mi 10: Mais Megapixels
Comparison Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 87.8 % | 06/2020 | Xiaomi Mi 10 SD 865, Adreno 650 | 208 g | 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2340x1080 | |
| 86.1 % | 03/2020 | Oppo Find X2 Pro SD 865, Adreno 650 | 202 g | 512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.70" | 3168x1440 | |
| 88.5 % | 04/2020 | OnePlus 8 Pro SD 865, Adreno 650 | 199 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.78" | 3168x1440 | |
| 87.7 % | 03/2020 | Samsung Galaxy S20 Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11 | 163 g | 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.20" | 3200x1440 | |
| 87.4 % | 04/2020 | Huawei P40 Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16 | 175 g | 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.10" | 2340x1080 |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Huawei P40 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 | |
| OnePlus 8 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Huawei P40 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| OnePlus 8 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
| Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 96 %
iluminação com acumulador: 786 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.1 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 1.8 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
98.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.26
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.67 | Oppo Find X2 Pro AMOLED, 3168x1440, 6.70 | OnePlus 8 Pro AMOLED, 3168x1440, 6.78 | Samsung Galaxy S20 AMOLED, 3200x1440, 6.20 | Huawei P40 AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -134% | 17% | -45% | -64% | |
| Brightness middle | 786 | 778 -1% | 796 1% | 745 -5% | 583 -26% |
| Brightness | 791 | 775 -2% | 779 -2% | 740 -6% | 593 -25% |
| Brightness Distribution | 96 | 99 3% | 94 -2% | 97 1% | 94 -2% |
| Black Level * | |||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.1 | 4.4 -300% | 0.68 38% | 2.67 -143% | 3.03 -175% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 2.2 | 8.7 -295% | 1.55 30% | 4.52 -105% | 5.33 -142% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1.8 | 5.6 -211% | 1.1 39% | 2 -11% | 2 -11% |
| Gamma | 2.26 97% | 2.26 97% | 2.237 98% | 2.092 105% | 2.301 96% |
| CCT | 6315 103% | 7250 90% | 6310 103% | 6240 104% | 6621 98% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 362.3 Hz | ≤ 99 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 362.3 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 99 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 362.3 Hz is relatively high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. However, there are reports that some users are still sensitive to PWM at 500 Hz and above, so be aware. 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 1.2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 1.2 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. » 7 % 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 | ||
| 3.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 1.6 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. » 9 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms). | ||
| AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
| OnePlus 8 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 | |
| Huawei P40 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (527301 - 631025, n=24) | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 351, n=173, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (45.2 - 77, n=20) | |
| OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Huawei P40 (Huawei Browser 10.1) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 (Chrome 80) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
| OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (74.2 - 145.1, n=21) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
| Huawei P40 (Huawei Browser 10.1) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 (Chrome 80) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (14.9 - 445, n=157, last 2 years) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
| OnePlus 8 Pro (Chome 80) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (30.6 - 74.5, n=19) | |
| Huawei P40 (Huawei Browser 10.1) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 (Chome 80) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (39 - 304, n=122, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (97 - 127, n=23) | |
| OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 (Chrome 80) | |
| Huawei P40 (Huawei Browser 10.1) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 89112, n=213, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (14606 - 31224, n=23) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| Huawei P40 (Huawei Browser 10.1) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 (Chrome 80) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 (Chrome 80) | |
| Huawei P40 (Huawei Browser 10.1) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (1623 - 2911, n=24) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
| OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (388 - 9999, n=173, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | Oppo Find X2 Pro | OnePlus 8 Pro | Samsung Galaxy S20 | Huawei P40 | Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro | Average 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 2% | 2% | 2% | -20% | 19% | -7% | 28% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 1498 | 1606 7% | 1627 9% | 1542 3% | 1592 6% | 1739 16% | 1520 ? 1% | 1508 ? 1% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 680 | 729 7% | 730 7% | 670 -1% | 212.9 -69% | 750 10% | 546 ? -20% | 1118 ? 64% |
| Random Read 4KB | 207 | 202.6 -2% | 208.3 1% | 205.3 -1% | 189.4 -9% | 264.9 28% | 206 ? 0% | 247 ? 19% |
| Random Write 4KB | 215.9 | 205 -5% | 197.7 -8% | 228.1 6% | 197 -9% | 258.5 20% | 193.9 ? -10% | 272 ? 26% |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 39.3 °C / 103 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 36.2 °C / 97 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.4 °C / 85 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
Xiaomi Mi 10 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.2% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (2.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 24% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 68% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 45% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 48% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Oppo Find X2 Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.1% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.2% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 37% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 55% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 57% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 36% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0.01 / 0.14 Watt |
| Ocioso |  0.53 / 1.46 / 1.52 Watt |
| Carga |
3.83 / 8.89 Watt |
    
| |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 4780 mAh | Oppo Find X2 Pro 4260 mAh | OnePlus 8 Pro 4510 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S20 4000 mAh | Huawei P40 3800 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -105% | -126% | -32% | -29% | -55% | -23% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.53 | 1.47 -177% | 2.2 -315% | 0.9 -70% | 1 -89% | 1.133 ? -114% | 0.897 ? -69% |
| Idle Average * | 1.46 | 3.43 -135% | 3.3 -126% | 1.5 -3% | 1.9 -30% | 2.23 ? -53% | 1.452 ? 1% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.52 | 3.52 -132% | 3.7 -143% | 2 -32% | 2.4 -58% | 2.45 ? -61% | 1.629 ? -7% |
| Load Average * | 3.83 | 6.2 -62% | 5.9 -54% | 4.8 -25% | 3.5 9% | 5.26 ? -37% | 5.55 ? -45% |
| Load Maximum * | 8.89 | 10.63 -20% | 8.3 7% | 11.5 -29% | 6.9 22% | 9.68 ? -9% | 8.31 ? 7% |
* ... smaller is better
| Xiaomi Mi 10 4780 mAh | Oppo Find X2 Pro 4260 mAh | OnePlus 8 Pro 4510 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S20 4000 mAh | Huawei P40 3800 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -1% | 20% | 6% | 9% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1789 | 2103 18% | 2105 18% | 2063 15% | |
| H.264 | 1126 | 1023 -9% | 809 -28% | 1052 -7% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 662 | 654 -1% | 923 39% | 726 10% | 806 22% |
| Load | 226 | 296 31% | 279 23% | 236 4% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto - O alto preço faz com que suas falhas pareçam piores
O Xiaomi Mi 10 nos deixa com sentimentos confusos. Por um lado, oferece excelente desempenho na operação diária, se sente ótimo e mostra uma alta qualidade de acabamento em qualquer lugar. Por outro lado, a câmera de 108 MP oferece gravações um pouco decepcionantes no final. Aqui, a influência de um bom software na qualidade da imagem é mostrada novamente. Outros fabricantes podem obter muito mais de suas câmeras com significativamente menos megapixels - por isso, gostaríamos de obter exatamente isso também do dispositivo Xiaomi.
O Xiaomi Mi 10 convence com bom acabamento e desempenho fluente na operação diária. Só esperávamos mais da câmera.
Além do desempenho da câmera, há apenas pequenas reclamações, como a falta de um leitor de cartão de armazenamento no Xiaomi, por exemplo. Também é possível viver sem uma conexão de áudio de 3,5 mm, e a maioria dos usuários deve se contentar com a duração média da bateria. Mas no final, o Xiaomi Mi 10 é bastante caro, fazendo com que a pressão dos concorrentes, alguns dos quais são significativamente mais poderosos, fique muito mais alta.
Xiaomi Mi 10
-
08/31/2022 v7
Mike Wobker
Pricecompare
