Notebookcheck

Breve Análise do Smartphone Xiaomi Mi Mix 3

Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Daniel Schmidt (traduzido por Ricardo Soto), 12/03/2018

From old to new. O Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 utiliza tecnologia testada e comprovada, um mecanismo deslizante e um design quase sem marcos e, o que é mais importante, sem entalhes. Mas os últimos lançamentos da série Mi Mix também têm outra surpresa na loja.

Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 (Mi Serie)
Placa gráfica
Memória
8192 MB 
Pantalha
6.39 polegadas 19.5:9, 2340 x 1080 pixel 403 PPI, Tela multi-touch capacitiva, AMOLED, Super AMOLED, Brilhante: sim
Disco rígido
128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 128 GB 
, 110.3 GB livre
Conexões
1 USB 2.0, Conexões Audio: USB Type C, 1 Leitor de Impressões Digitais, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensores: bússola, giroscópio, sensor de proximidade, acelerômetro, OTG, status LED, VoLTE, WiFi-Calling, Miracast
Funcionamento em rede
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM 1800 / 1900 / 850 / 900MHz; UMTS 1900 / 2100 / 850 / 900MHz; FD-LTE 2100 (band 1) / 1800 (band 3) / 2600 (band 7) / 900(band 8) / 1900(band 2) / 1700(band 4) / 850(band 5) / 700(band 17) / 800(band 20); TD-LTE 2600(band 38) / 2300(band 40) / 2500(band, Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Tamanho
altura x largura x profundidade (em mm): 8.8 x 157.8 x 74.6
Bateria
3200 mAh Lítio-Polímero
Sistema Operativo
Android 9.0 Pie
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix Dual: 12MP + 12MP; Exmor-RS CMOS sensor; f/1.8; 3840x2160 @ 30 fps, 1920x1080 @ 60 fps, 1280x720 @ 120 fps
Secondary Camera: 24 MPix Dual: 24MP + 2MP
Características adicionais
Alto falantes: Alto-falante mono, Teclado: virtual, Qi charging pad, fonte de alimentação modular CN, adaptador de conector de áudio de 3,5-mm-para-USB-Type-C, capa, cabo microUSB, MIUI, 12 Meses Garantia, fanless
peso
218 g, Suprimento de energia: 68 g
Preço
470 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3

Size Comparison

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
685 (min: 657, max: 705) MBit/s ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
652 MBit/s ∼95% -5%
OnePlus 6T
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
629 (min: 621, max: 638) MBit/s ∼92% -8%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
615 MBit/s ∼90% -10%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
615 (min: 532, max: 642) MBit/s ∼90% -10%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
491 (min: 100, max: 534) MBit/s ∼72% -28%
HTC U12 Plus
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
579 MBit/s ∼85% -15%
Oppo Find X
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
530 (min: 467, max: 568) MBit/s ∼77% -23%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Adreno 630, 845, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
523 MBit/s ∼76% -24%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=303)
210 MBit/s ∼31% -69%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
696 (min: 647, max: 714) MBit/s ∼100% +5%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
663 (min: 289, max: 805) MBit/s ∼95% 0%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
663 (min: 507, max: 704) MBit/s ∼95%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
615 MBit/s ∼88% -7%
HTC U12 Plus
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
573 MBit/s ∼82% -14%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Adreno 630, 845, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
524 MBit/s ∼75% -21%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
519 MBit/s ∼75% -22%
OnePlus 6T
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
474 (min: 241, max: 497) MBit/s ∼68% -29%
Oppo Find X
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
450 (min: 167, max: 526) MBit/s ∼65% -32%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=303)
205 MBit/s ∼29% -69%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700710Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø684 (657-705)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø663 (507-704)
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
GPS Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
GPS Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
GPS Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
GPS Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
GPS Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
photo mode
photo mode
double zoom
double zoom
portrait mode
portrait mode
portrait mode
portrait mode
photo mode
photo mode
night mode
night mode
photo mode
photo mode
double zoom
double zoom
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3

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
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
587
cd/m²
586
cd/m²
576
cd/m²
599
cd/m²
599
cd/m²
595
cd/m²
595
cd/m²
599
cd/m²
599
cd/m²
Distribuição do brilho
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Máximo: 599 cd/m² Médio: 592.8 cd/m² Minimum: 2.12 cd/m²
iluminação: 96 %
iluminação com acumulador: 599 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.4 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.2
ΔE Greyscale 2 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
97.5% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.25
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
OLED, 2340x1080, 6.39
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Super AMOLED, 2248x1080, 6.2
Oppo Find X
AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.42
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Super AMOLED, 2316x1080, 6.59
OnePlus 6T
Optic AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.41
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.2
HTC U12 Plus
Super LCD 6, 2880x1440, 6
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
OLED, 3120x1440, 6.3
Screen
-56%
-97%
-161%
-25%
-20%
-8%
1%
Brightness middle
599
429
-28%
427
-29%
356
-41%
437
-27%
565
-6%
395
-34%
576
-4%
Brightness
593
432
-27%
432
-27%
352
-41%
442
-25%
571
-4%
402
-32%
582
-2%
Brightness Distribution
96
88
-8%
87
-9%
95
-1%
95
-1%
96
0%
90
-6%
90
-6%
Black Level *
0.37
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
1.4
3.39
-142%
5.37
-284%
7.08
-406%
2.21
-58%
2.3
-64%
1.6
-14%
1.3
7%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
3.2
5.25
-64%
7.51
-135%
14.1
-341%
4.27
-33%
4.8
-50%
3.4
-6%
3.5
-9%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
2
3.3
-65%
4
-100%
4.7
-135%
2.1
-5%
1.9
5%
1.1
45%
1.6
20%
Gamma
2.25 98%
2.238 98%
2.243 98%
2.096 105%
2.307 95%
2.16 102%
2.14 103%
2.18 101%
CCT
6496 100%
7135 91%
6851 95%
7297 89%
6353 102%
6332 103%
6536 99%
6561 99%
Contrast
1068

* ... 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 240.4 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 240.4 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 240.4 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below.

In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8943 (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
12.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 9.4 ms rise
↘ 2.8 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. » 10 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (25.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
7.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 2.8 ms rise
↘ 4.8 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 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 3 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (41 ms).
Geekbench 4.1/4.2
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
13374 Points ∼94%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
14299 Points ∼100% +7%
Oppo Find X
13817 Points ∼97% +3%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
13666 Points ∼96% +2%
OnePlus 6T
13341 Points ∼93% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
6202 Points ∼43% -54%
HTC U12 Plus
12493 Points ∼87% -7%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
8938 Points ∼63% -33%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (10876 - 14489, n=19)
13635 Points ∼95% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (836 - 21070, n=197)
4524 Points ∼32% -66%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
8634 Points ∼86%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
8548 Points ∼85% -1%
Oppo Find X
7983 Points ∼80% -8%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
9136 Points ∼91% +6%
OnePlus 6T
8995 Points ∼90% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
8963 Points ∼89% +4%
HTC U12 Plus
8812 Points ∼88% +2%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
10024 Points ∼100% +16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7754 - 9231, n=21)
8655 Points ∼86% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (883 - 11598, n=247)
4308 Points ∼43% -50%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
2333 Points ∼62%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
2441 Points ∼65% +5%
Oppo Find X
2330 Points ∼62% 0%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
2464 Points ∼65% +6%
OnePlus 6T
2384 Points ∼63% +2%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3776 Points ∼100% +62%
HTC U12 Plus
2429 Points ∼64% +4%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
3378 Points ∼89% +45%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2272 - 2500, n=21)
2417 Points ∼64% +4%
Average of class Smartphone (394 - 4824, n=248)
1270 Points ∼34% -46%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
8326 Points ∼84%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
7360 Points ∼75% -12%
Oppo Find X
9868 Points ∼100% +19%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
7580 Points ∼77% -9%
OnePlus 6T
8487 Points ∼86% +2%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
5319 Points ∼54% -36%
HTC U12 Plus
8601 Points ∼87% +3%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
9225 Points ∼93% +11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (8326 - 9868, n=22)
8018 Points ∼81% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (3146 - 9868, n=255)
4555 Points ∼46% -45%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
10052 Points ∼76%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
8967 Points ∼68% -11%
Oppo Find X
13211 Points ∼100% +31%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
7998 Points ∼61% -20%
OnePlus 6T
10590 Points ∼80% +5%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
5822 Points ∼44% -42%
HTC U12 Plus
10264 Points ∼78% +2%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
12535 Points ∼95% +25%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7998 - 13211, n=20)
10123 Points ∼77% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (6412 - 13531, n=423)
4958 Points ∼38% -51%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
2802 Points ∼64%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
2227 Points ∼51% -21%
Oppo Find X
3089 Points ∼71% +10%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
2577 Points ∼59% -8%
OnePlus 6T
3681 Points ∼84% +31%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2546 Points ∼58% -9%
HTC U12 Plus
2947 Points ∼68% +5%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4364 Points ∼100% +56%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2223 - 3764, n=22)
3110 Points ∼71% +11%
Average of class Smartphone (2293 - 4439, n=277)
1709 Points ∼39% -39%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
4480 Points ∼76%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
4209 Points ∼72% -6%
Oppo Find X
5678 Points ∼97% +27%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
5689 Points ∼97% +27%
OnePlus 6T
5877 Points ∼100% +31%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3792 Points ∼65% -15%
HTC U12 Plus
4450 Points ∼76% -1%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4250 Points ∼72% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4209 - 8206, n=22)
5494 Points ∼93% +23%
Average of class Smartphone (869 - 8206, n=277)
1465 Points ∼25% -67%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
3846 Points ∼74%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3512 Points ∼68% -9%
Oppo Find X
4765 Points ∼92% +24%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4485 Points ∼86% +17%
OnePlus 6T
5189 Points ∼100% +35%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3420 Points ∼66% -11%
HTC U12 Plus
3997 Points ∼77% +4%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4275 Points ∼82% +11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3512 - 5189, n=22)
4646 Points ∼90% +21%
Average of class Smartphone (1010 - 5189, n=280)
1360 Points ∼26% -65%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
3060 Points ∼69%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
2145 Points ∼49% -30%
Oppo Find X
3024 Points ∼69% -1%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
2110 Points ∼48% -31%
OnePlus 6T
3374 Points ∼77% +10%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2561 Points ∼58% -16%
HTC U12 Plus
2656 Points ∼60% -13%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4407 Points ∼100% +44%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2110 - 3763, n=21)
3081 Points ∼70% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (375 - 4493, n=292)
1689 Points ∼38% -45%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
8245 Points ∼98%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
5922 Points ∼71% -28%
Oppo Find X
8357 Points ∼100% +1%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
7823 Points ∼93% -5%
OnePlus 6T
8397 Points ∼100% +2%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
4797 Points ∼57% -42%
HTC U12 Plus
6419 Points ∼76% -22%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
5854 Points ∼70% -29%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5228 - 8451, n=21)
7720 Points ∼92% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (131 - 14951, n=292)
2068 Points ∼25% -75%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
6054 Points ∼96%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
4232 Points ∼67% -30%
Oppo Find X
6005 Points ∼95% -1%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4884 Points ∼77% -19%
OnePlus 6T
6310 Points ∼100% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
4018 Points ∼64% -34%
HTC U12 Plus
4882 Points ∼77% -19%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
5456 Points ∼86% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4054 - 6568, n=21)
5771 Points ∼91% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (159 - 7856, n=293)
1734 Points ∼27% -71%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
2653 Points ∼63%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
2118 Points ∼51% -20%
Oppo Find X
3132 Points ∼75% +18%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
3271 Points ∼78% +23%
OnePlus 6T
3537 Points ∼85% +33%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2469 Points ∼59% -7%
HTC U12 Plus
3197 Points ∼76% +21%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4183 Points ∼100% +58%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2118 - 3703, n=21)
3268 Points ∼78% +23%
Average of class Smartphone (2281 - 4216, n=352)
1642 Points ∼39% -38%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
4223 Points ∼81%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3742 Points ∼71% -11%
Oppo Find X
5169 Points ∼99% +22%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
5171 Points ∼99% +22%
OnePlus 6T
5241 Points ∼100% +24%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3582 Points ∼68% -15%
HTC U12 Plus
3488 Points ∼67% -17%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4206 Points ∼80% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3488 - 5241, n=21)
4944 Points ∼94% +17%
Average of class Smartphone (815 - 5241, n=352)
1186 Points ∼23% -72%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
3677 Points ∼78%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3197 Points ∼68% -13%
Oppo Find X
4516 Points ∼95% +23%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4580 Points ∼97% +25%
OnePlus 6T
4734 Points ∼100% +29%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3256 Points ∼69% -11%
HTC U12 Plus
3419 Points ∼72% -7%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4201 Points ∼89% +14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3197 - 4734, n=21)
4424 Points ∼93% +20%
Average of class Smartphone (951 - 4734, n=360)
1134 Points ∼24% -69%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
3221 Points ∼78%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
2176 Points ∼52% -32%
Oppo Find X
3197 Points ∼77% -1%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
2806 Points ∼68% -13%
OnePlus 6T
3483 Points ∼84% +8%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2496 Points ∼60% -23%
HTC U12 Plus
2774 Points ∼67% -14%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4150 Points ∼100% +29%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2159 - 3668, n=21)
3129 Points ∼75% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (532 - 4215, n=384)
1540 Points ∼37% -52%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
8236 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
6554 Points ∼79% -20%
Oppo Find X
8193 Points ∼99% -1%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
8203 Points ∼99% 0%
OnePlus 6T
8272 Points ∼100% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
4637 Points ∼56% -44%
HTC U12 Plus
5637 Points ∼68% -32%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
5305 Points ∼64% -36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5637 - 8312, n=21)
7818 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (46 - 8312, n=384)
1632 Points ∼20% -80%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
6118 Points ∼97%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
4529 Points ∼71% -26%
Oppo Find X
6087 Points ∼96% -1%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
5747 Points ∼91% -6%
OnePlus 6T
6336 Points ∼100% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3895 Points ∼61% -36%
HTC U12 Plus
4585 Points ∼72% -25%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4996 Points ∼79% -18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4529 - 6454, n=21)
5843 Points ∼92% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (58 - 6454, n=392)
1387 Points ∼22% -77%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
35987 Points ∼98%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
30765 Points ∼84% -15%
Oppo Find X
35009 Points ∼95% -3%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
34800 Points ∼95% -3%
OnePlus 6T
35022 Points ∼95% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
26226 Points ∼71% -27%
HTC U12 Plus
33810 Points ∼92% -6%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
36755 Points ∼100% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (15614 - 37475, n=21)
33400 Points ∼91% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (3958 - 37475, n=539)
12880 Points ∼35% -64%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
83976 Points ∼99%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
77003 Points ∼91% -8%
Oppo Find X
83168 Points ∼98% -1%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
80183 Points ∼94% -5%
OnePlus 6T
84998 Points ∼100% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
46610 Points ∼55% -44%
HTC U12 Plus
81726 Points ∼96% -3%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
67730 Points ∼80% -19%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (53794 - 84998, n=21)
80111 Points ∼94% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (2465 - 162695, n=539)
17994 Points ∼21% -79%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
64627 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
57711 Points ∼89% -11%
Oppo Find X
63695 Points ∼99% -1%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
62167 Points ∼96% -4%
OnePlus 6T
64534 Points ∼100% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
39745 Points ∼61% -39%
HTC U12 Plus
62152 Points ∼96% -4%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
57047 Points ∼88% -12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (34855 - 65330, n=21)
60990 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (2915 - 77599, n=540)
15114 Points ∼23% -77%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
152 fps ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
102 fps ∼67% -33%
Oppo Find X
146 fps ∼96% -4%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
151 fps ∼99% -1%
OnePlus 6T
152 fps ∼100% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
147 fps ∼97% -3%
HTC U12 Plus
98 fps ∼64% -36%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
120 fps ∼79% -21%
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 Mi Mix 3
60 fps ∼96%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
58 fps ∼93% -3%
Oppo Find X
60 fps ∼96% 0%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
60 fps ∼96% 0%
OnePlus 6T
60 fps ∼96% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
60 fps ∼96% 0%
HTC U12 Plus
59 fps ∼94% -2%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
61 fps ∼97% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (58 - 89, n=21)
62.7 fps ∼100% +5%
Average of class Smartphone (6.9 - 120, n=567)
25 fps ∼40% -58%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
81 fps ∼98%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
54 fps ∼65% -33%
Oppo Find X
79 fps ∼95% -2%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
83 fps ∼100% +2%
OnePlus 6T
59 fps ∼71% -27%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
74 fps ∼89% -9%
HTC U12 Plus
72 fps ∼87% -11%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
73 fps ∼88% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (54 - 83, n=21)
73 fps ∼88% -10%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 132, n=486)
16.8 fps ∼20% -79%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
56 fps ∼95%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
51 fps ∼86% -9%
Oppo Find X
58 fps ∼98% +4%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
59 fps ∼100% +5%
OnePlus 6T
59 fps ∼100% +5%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
45 fps ∼76% -20%
HTC U12 Plus
35 fps ∼59% -37%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
42 fps ∼71% -25%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (35 - 75, n=21)
55 fps ∼93% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 115, n=489)
16 fps ∼27% -71%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
59 fps ∼98%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
32 fps ∼53% -46%
Oppo Find X
58 fps ∼97% -2%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
60 fps ∼100% +2%
OnePlus 6T
59 fps ∼98% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
47 fps ∼78% -20%
HTC U12 Plus
39 fps ∼65% -34%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
29 fps ∼48% -51%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (32 - 61, n=22)
54.4 fps ∼91% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 88, n=349)
14.3 fps ∼24% -76%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
50 fps ∼85%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
29 fps ∼49% -42%
Oppo Find X
59 fps ∼100% +18%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
55 fps ∼93% +10%
OnePlus 6T
53 fps ∼90% +6%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
24 fps ∼41% -52%
HTC U12 Plus
31 fps ∼53% -38%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
26 fps ∼44% -48%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (25 - 59, n=21)
46.5 fps ∼79% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (9.8 - 110, n=352)
13.9 fps ∼24% -72%
GFXBench
High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
20 fps ∼91%
OnePlus 6T
22 fps ∼100% +10%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
19 fps ∼86% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (13 - 25, n=10)
19.8 fps ∼90% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (3.6 - 59, n=62)
10.2 fps ∼46% -49%
2560x1440 High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
31 fps ∼100%
OnePlus 6T
14 fps ∼45% -55%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
13 fps ∼42% -58%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (11 - 31, n=10)
15.4 fps ∼50% -50%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 31, n=62)
6.49 fps ∼21% -79%
Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
20 fps ∼59%
OnePlus 6T
34 fps ∼100% +70%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
18 fps ∼53% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (20 - 40, n=10)
28.5 fps ∼84% +43%
Average of class Smartphone (5.7 - 59, n=62)
14.4 fps ∼42% -28%
1920x1080 Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
30 fps ∼81%
OnePlus 6T
37 fps ∼100% +23%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
33 fps ∼89% +10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (29 - 38, n=9)
35 fps ∼95% +17%
Average of class Smartphone (6 - 63, n=61)
15.7 fps ∼42% -48%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
35 fps ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
25 fps ∼71% -29%
Oppo Find X
35 fps ∼100% 0%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
35 fps ∼100% 0%
OnePlus 6T
35 fps ∼100% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
28 fps ∼80% -20%
HTC U12 Plus
35 fps ∼100% 0%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
31 fps ∼89% -11%
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 Mi Mix 3
30 fps ∼91%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
24 fps ∼73% -20%
Oppo Find X
29 fps ∼88% -3%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
33 fps ∼100% +10%
OnePlus 6T
31 fps ∼94% +3%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
14 fps ∼42% -53%
HTC U12 Plus
20 fps ∼61% -33%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
16 fps ∼48% -47%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (17 - 37, n=21)
28.3 fps ∼86% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (6 - 58, n=283)
8.89 fps ∼27% -70%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
292798 Points ∼97%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
288062 Points ∼96% -2%
Oppo Find X
283346 Points ∼94% -3%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
286241 Points ∼95% -2%
OnePlus 6T
294488 Points ∼98% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
250577 Points ∼83% -14%
HTC U12 Plus
255739 Points ∼85% -13%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
300617 Points ∼100% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (246366 - 299878, n=22)
275958 Points ∼92% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (17073 - 348178, n=170)
118332 Points ∼39% -60%
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
228173 Points ∼91%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
232931 Points ∼93% +2%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
229991 Points ∼92% +1%
OnePlus 6T
228939 Points ∼91% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
222290 Points ∼89% -3%
HTC U12 Plus
221971 Points ∼88% -3%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
250848 Points ∼100% +10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (162183 - 242953, n=18)
223967 Points ∼89% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (23275 - 254229, n=387)
75990 Points ∼30% -67%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
1386 Points ∼96%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
1288 Points ∼90% -7%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
1009 Points ∼70% -27%
OnePlus 6T
1398 Points ∼97% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
1109 Points ∼77% -20%
HTC U12 Plus
1437 Points ∼100% +4%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
1424 Points ∼99% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (1009 - 1613, n=20)
1348 Points ∼94% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1731, n=499)
698 Points ∼49% -50%
Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
7891 Points ∼99%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
7965 Points ∼100% +1%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
7887 Points ∼99% 0%
OnePlus 6T
7969 Points ∼100% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
6370 Points ∼80% -19%
HTC U12 Plus
7945 Points ∼100% +1%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
6273 Points ∼79% -21%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5846 - 8001, n=20)
7816 Points ∼98% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 15969, n=499)
1737 Points ∼22% -78%
Memory (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
3791 Points ∼60%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3521 Points ∼56% -7%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4798 Points ∼76% +27%
OnePlus 6T
4344 Points ∼69% +15%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2625 Points ∼42% -31%
HTC U12 Plus
3641 Points ∼58% -4%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
6283 Points ∼100% +66%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2193 - 5296, n=20)
3594 Points ∼57% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 6283, n=499)
1244 Points ∼20% -67%
System (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
8146 Points ∼95%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
6556 Points ∼76% -20%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
8252 Points ∼96% +1%
OnePlus 6T
8156 Points ∼95% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
6413 Points ∼75% -21%
HTC U12 Plus
7862 Points ∼91% -3%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
8604 Points ∼100% +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4417 - 8613, n=20)
7657 Points ∼89% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 12202, n=499)
2512 Points ∼29% -69%
Overall (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
4287 Points ∼91%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3923 Points ∼84% -8%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4213 Points ∼90% -2%
OnePlus 6T
4458 Points ∼95% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3302 Points ∼70% -23%
HTC U12 Plus
4252 Points ∼91% -1%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4687 Points ∼100% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3291 - 4693, n=20)
4099 Points ∼87% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (150 - 6097, n=503)
1255 Points ∼27% -71%

Legend

 
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Oppo Find X Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Vivo Nex Ultimate Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
OnePlus 6T Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus Samsung Exynos 9810, ARM Mali-G72 MP18, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
HTC U12 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, ARM Mali-G76 MP10, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69)
109.18 Points ∼100% +27%
HTC U12 Plus (Chrome 66)
87.036 Points ∼80% +1%
OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70)
86.123 Points ∼79% 0%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 (Chrome 70)
85.976 Points ∼79%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition (Chrome 69)
80.876 Points ∼74% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (22.5 - 90.9, n=22)
76.9 Points ∼70% -11%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0)
69.59 Points ∼64% -19%
Oppo Find X (Chrome 69)
64.809 Points ∼59% -25%
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 273, n=422)
36.7 Points ∼34% -57%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67)
22.509 Points ∼21% -74%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69)
23285 Points ∼100% +41%
OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70)
16824 Points ∼72% +2%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 (Chrome 70)
16489 Points ∼71%
HTC U12 Plus (Chrome 66)
16285 Points ∼70% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3991 - 18275, n=22)
15431 Points ∼66% -6%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0)
14760 Points ∼63% -10%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition (Chrome 69)
14617 Points ∼63% -11%
Oppo Find X (Chrome 69)
13276 Points ∼57% -19%
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 43280, n=557)
5556 Points ∼24% -66%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67)
3991 Points ∼17% -76%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (603 - 59466, n=578)
11474 ms * ∼100% -399%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67)
11203.6 ms * ∼98% -387%
Oppo Find X (Chrome 69)
3147 ms * ∼27% -37%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2154 - 11204, n=22)
2874 ms * ∼25% -25%
HTC U12 Plus (Chrome 66)
2409.6 ms * ∼21% -5%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition (Chrome 69)
2316.8 ms * ∼20% -1%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 (Chrome 70)
2299.9 ms * ∼20%
OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70)
2281.6 ms * ∼20% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0)
2059.7 ms * ∼18% +10%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69)
1951.9 ms * ∼17% +15%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69)
124 Points ∼100% +31%
HTC U12 Plus (Chrome 66)
101 Points ∼81% +6%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 (Chrome 70)
95 Points ∼77%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (19 - 103, n=15)
84.5 Points ∼68% -11%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
64 Points ∼52% -33%
Average of class Smartphone (25 - 161, n=63)
63.6 Points ∼51% -33%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Stock Browser)
19 Points ∼15% -80%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69)
334 Points ∼100% +28%
OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70)
260 Points ∼78% 0%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 (Chrome 70)
260 Points ∼78%
HTC U12 Plus (Chrome 66)
257 Points ∼77% -1%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition (Chrome 69)
251 Points ∼75% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (260 - 291, n=21)
233 Points ∼70% -10%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0)
164 Points ∼49% -37%
Average of class Smartphone (91 - 362, n=284)
111 Points ∼33% -57%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67)
96 Points ∼29% -63%

* ... smaller is better

Xiaomi Mi Mix 3Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer EditionOppo Find XVivo Nex UltimateOnePlus 6TSamsung Galaxy S9 PlusHTC U12 PlusHuawei Mate 20 ProAverage 128 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
5%
15%
5%
6%
8%
106%
187%
97%
-54%
Random Write 4KB
19.54
22.65
16%
26.98
38%
22.1
13%
22
13%
22.74
16%
104.24
433%
157.84
708%
92.1 (19.5 - 164, n=17)
371%
16.1 (0.14 - 164, n=607)
-18%
Random Read 4KB
133.24
135.21
1%
145.87
9%
126.7
-5%
138.5
4%
129.68
-3%
118.14
-11%
157.42
18%
141 (132 - 158, n=17)
6%
38.3 (1.59 - 173, n=607)
-71%
Sequential Write 256KB
206.76
205.23
-1%
206.87
0%
228.4
10%
204.4
-1%
204.94
-1%
195.82
-5%
196.39
-5%
202 (192 - 212, n=17)
-2%
79.9 (2.99 - 246, n=607)
-61%
Sequential Read 256KB
674.98
691.65
2%
760.99
13%
687.2
2%
735.3
9%
818.69
21%
709.11
5%
853.28
26%
767 (675 - 853, n=17)
14%
230 (12.1 - 895, n=607)
-66%

PUBG Mobile

01020304050Tooltip
: Ø39.9 (39-41)

Asphalt 9 Legends

010203040Tooltip
: Ø29.6 (27-31)
Carga Máxima
 31.7 °C31.6 °C31.6 °C 
 31.7 °C30.9 °C31.3 °C 
 32 °C31.7 °C30.6 °C 
Máximo: 32 °C
Médio: 31.5 °C
28.9 °C30.6 °C30.8 °C
28.2 °C30.6 °C31.1 °C
28.1 °C30.3 °C30.9 °C
Máximo: 31.1 °C
Médio: 29.9 °C
alimentação elétrica  26.3 °C | Temperatura do quarto 20.8 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 31.5 °C / 89 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 32 °C / 90 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 31.1 °C / 88 F, compared to the average of 34.2 °C / 94 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.5 °C / 80 F, compared to the device average of 33.2 °C / 92 F.
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2035.739.62526.725.83128.722.44026.5295036.936.46326.725.48026.921.910022.323.812520.223.916017.741.220018.741.925019.248.831515.85540015.660.650013.964.363014.365.680014.866.5100013.466.9125014.370.1160014.571.9200013.873.6250013.674.9315014.174.9400014.174500014.976.763001572.9800015.269.81000014.973.41250014.766.11600014.753SPL26.784.8N0.859.7median 14.8median 66.5Delta1.711.930.32938.131.328.52831.428.536.634.224.628.624.126.520.523.11927.316.939.919.151.416.652.413.9551559.514.659.112.357.411.858.611.863.811.968.611.469.511.27011.573.311.370.510.968.710.568.610.76610.665.210.566.410.655.710.638.964.357.22480.516.810.40.545.3median 11.8median 59.52.28.4hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseXiaomi Mi Mix 3OnePlus 6T
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.4% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 19% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 69% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 50% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 41% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

OnePlus 6T audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 18% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.9% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 17% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 72% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 48% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 43% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Consumo de energia
desligadodarklight 0.01 / 0.11 Watt
Ociosodarkmidlight 0.49 / 0.67 / 0.87 Watt
Carga midlight 3.64 / 9.04 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
3200 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3000 mAh
Oppo Find X
3730 mAh
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4000 mAh
OnePlus 6T
3700 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3500 mAh
HTC U12 Plus
3500 mAh
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4200 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-192%
-130%
-57%
-51%
-18%
-104%
-94%
-79%
-68%
Idle Minimum *
0.49
1.8
-267%
0.9
-84%
0.9
-84%
0.7
-43%
0.68
-39%
0.77
-57%
0.95
-94%
0.802 (0.42 - 1.8, n=19)
-64%
0.881 (0.2 - 3.4, n=635)
-80%
Idle Average *
0.67
2.9
-333%
1.9
-184%
1.5
-124%
1.1
-64%
0.95
-42%
2.18
-225%
2.17
-224%
1.722 (0.67 - 2.9, n=19)
-157%
1.721 (0.6 - 6.2, n=634)
-157%
Idle Maximum *
0.87
3.5
-302%
3.2
-268%
1.7
-95%
2.1
-141%
1.09
-25%
2.21
-154%
2.25
-159%
2.1 (0.87 - 3.5, n=19)
-141%
1.998 (0.74 - 6.6, n=635)
-130%
Load Average *
3.64
4.8
-32%
7.1
-95%
3.7
-2%
4.2
-15%
4.58
-26%
6.25
-72%
4.47
-23%
4.79 (3.64 - 7.2, n=19)
-32%
4.03 (0.8 - 10.8, n=629)
-11%
Load Maximum *
9.04
11.2
-24%
10.7
-18%
7.2
20%
8.3
8%
5.16
43%
10.16
-12%
6.15
32%
9.2 (6.2 - 12.3, n=19)
-2%
5.75 (1.2 - 14.2, n=629)
36%

* ... smaller is better

Tempo de Execução da Bateria
Ocioso (sem WLAN, min brilho)
30h 10min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
11h 59min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
13h 56min
Carga (máximo brilho)
3h 14min
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
3200 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3000 mAh
Oppo Find X
3730 mAh
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4000 mAh
OnePlus 6T
3700 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3500 mAh
HTC U12 Plus
3500 mAh
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4200 mAh
Battery Runtime
-5%
-17%
23%
18%
-13%
-19%
13%
Reader / Idle
1810
1401
-23%
1925
6%
1936
7%
1343
-26%
1452
-20%
1747
-3%
H.264
836
921
10%
1133
36%
903
8%
674
-19%
464
-44%
854
2%
WiFi v1.3
719
694
-3%
596
-17%
1026
43%
865
20%
521
-28%
507
-29%
767
7%
Load
194
191
-2%
203
5%
261
35%
237
22%
230
19%
282
45%

Pro

+ Excelente Painel OLED
+ Wi-Fi rápido
+ Design
+ Carcaça de boa qualidade
+ Boas câmeras
+ GPS preciso
+ Alto desempenho
+ Quase nenhuma perda de calor...

Contra

- ... apesar de tudo, leve afogamento
- Peso
- Mecanismo deslizante parece ser um pouco frágil às vezes
- USB 2.0
- Widevine nível 3
- Armazenamento não expansível
Review: Xiaomi Mi Mix 3. Test unit provided by TradingShenzhen.
Review: Xiaomi Mi Mix 3. Test unit provided by TradingShenzhen.

O Mi Mix 3 é um muito bom smartphone sem marcos que não apresenta entalhes na tela. A tela em particular é outro passo acima do Mi 8. A tecnologia da tela usada pela Xiaomi é excelente. 

Ficamos surpresos com o bom desempenho da bateria relativamente pequena no smartphone deslizante. Nosso teste de bateria mostra que o Mi Mix 3 pode oferecer bons tempos de duração graças às excelentes taxas de consumo de energia. A maioria dos usuários deve conseguir passar o dia facilmente com uma carga de bateria.

O Mi Mix é um smartphone muito bom que pode não ser um companheiro de viagem ideal para todos devido ao seu mecanismo de deslizamento. 

O Mi Mix 3 da Xiaomi não tem muitas fraquezas. Devido ao mecanismo de deslizamento, o smartphone de gama alta não possui certificação IP, é bastante pesado e provavelmente mais propenso a se quebrar do que um smartphone "normal" com um corpo monobloco.

Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 - 12/03/2018 v6
Marcus Herbrich

Acabamento
87%
Teclado
67 / 75 → 89%
Mouse
93%
Conectividade
48 / 60 → 79%
Peso
88%
Bateria
95%
Pantalha
91%
Desempenho do jogos
69 / 63 → 100%
Desempenho da aplicação
76 / 70 → 100%
Temperatura
94%
Ruído
100%
Audio
69 / 91 → 76%
Camera
82%
Médio
81%
89%
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 Mi Mix 3
Marcus Herbrich, 2018-12- 3 (Update: 2018-12- 5)