Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarBreve Análise do Smartphone Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro - Telefone de gama média com uma tela HDR AMOLED e >1000 nits
Competing Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 86.6 % | 08/2020 | Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro SD 865, Adreno 650 | 219 g | 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
| 85 % | 06/2020 | LG Velvet SD 765G, Adreno 620 | 180 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.80" | 2460x1080 | |
| 86.1 % | 06/2020 | Realme X50 Pro SD 865, Adreno 650 | 205 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.44" | 2400x1080 | |
| 87.8 % | 06/2020 | Xiaomi Mi 10 SD 865, Adreno 650 | 208 g | 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2340x1080 | |
| 84.2 % | 06/2022 | Nubia RedMagic 5G SD 865, Adreno 650 | 218 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.65" | 2340x1080 | |
| 85.3 % | 07/2020 | Xiaomi Black Shark 3 SD 865, Adreno 650 | 222 g | 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 |
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.
HauptkameraLowLightUltraweitwinkelHauptkamera
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 97 %
iluminação com acumulador: 799 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.46 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 2.7 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
99.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.237
| Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro Super AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.67 | LG Velvet P-OLED, 2460x1080, 6.80 | Realme X50 Pro OLED, 2400x1080, 6.44 | Xiaomi Mi 10 Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.67 | Nubia RedMagic 5G OLED, 2340x1080, 6.65 | Xiaomi Black Shark 3 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.67 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -41% | -52% | 13% | -188% | -57% | |
| Brightness middle | 799 | 586 -27% | 679 -15% | 786 -2% | 593 -26% | 619 -23% |
| Brightness | 801 | 587 -27% | 690 -14% | 791 -1% | 601 -25% | 616 -23% |
| Brightness Distribution | 97 | 97 0% | 97 0% | 96 -1% | 92 -5% | 90 -7% |
| Black Level * | ||||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.46 | 2.8 -92% | 3.2 -119% | 1.1 25% | 8.1 -455% | 3.74 -156% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 2.92 | 6.3 -116% | 6.2 -112% | 2.2 25% | 16.2 -455% | 7.94 -172% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.7 | 2.3 15% | 4.1 -52% | 1.8 33% | 7.1 -163% | 1.7 37% |
| Gamma | 2.237 98% | 2.01 109% | 2.28 96% | 2.26 97% | 2.28 96% | 2.188 101% |
| CCT | 6003 108% | 6827 95% | 6604 98% | 6315 103% | 7566 86% | 6662 98% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 177.3 Hz |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 177.3 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 177.3 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 5 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 3 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 17 % 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 | ||
| 10 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 5 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 5 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 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 18 % 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 Poco F2 Pro | |
| LG Velvet | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| Nubia RedMagic 5G | |
| Xiaomi Black Shark 3 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (527301 - 631025, n=24) | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 351, n=173, last 2 years) | |
| Realme X50 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
| Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro (Chrome84) | |
| Xiaomi Black Shark 3 (Chrome 83) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (45.2 - 77, n=20) | |
| Nubia RedMagic 5G (Chrome 83) | |
| LG Velvet (Chrome 83) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro (Chrome84) | |
| Xiaomi Black Shark 3 (Chrome 83) | |
| Realme X50 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
| 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) | |
| Nubia RedMagic 5G (Chrome 83) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (14.9 - 445, n=157, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro (Chrome84) | |
| Xiaomi Black Shark 3 (Chome 83) | |
| Realme X50 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (30.6 - 74.5, n=19) | |
| Nubia RedMagic 5G (Chrome 83) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| LG Velvet (Chrome 83) | |
| 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) | |
| Xiaomi Black Shark 3 (Chrome 83) | |
| Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro (Chrome84) | |
| Realme X50 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
| Nubia RedMagic 5G (Chrome 83) | |
| LG Velvet (Chrome 83) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 89112, n=211, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro (Chrome84) | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (14606 - 31224, n=23) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| Nubia RedMagic 5G (Chrome 83) | |
| LG Velvet (Chrome 83) | |
| Xiaomi Black Shark 3 (Chrome 83) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| LG Velvet (Chrome 83) | |
| Xiaomi Black Shark 3 (Chrome 83) | |
| Nubia RedMagic 5G (Chrome 83) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (1623 - 2911, n=24) | |
| Realme X50 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro (Chrome84) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (388 - 9999, n=173, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro | LG Velvet | Realme X50 Pro | Xiaomi Mi 10 | Nubia RedMagic 5G | Xiaomi Black Shark 3 | Average 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -40% | 6% | -7% | -18% | 1% | 5% | 19% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 1634 | 925 -43% | 1756 7% | 1498 -8% | 1654 1% | 1692 4% | 1599 ? -2% | 1505 ? -8% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 722 | 409.2 -43% | 756 5% | 680 -6% | 388.4 -46% | 680 -6% | 777 ? 8% | 1112 ? 54% |
| Random Read 4KB | 229.7 | 154.3 -33% | 229.4 0% | 207 -10% | 201.6 -12% | 238.3 4% | 244 ? 6% | 247 ? 8% |
| Random Write 4KB | 226.4 | 135.9 -40% | 252 11% | 215.9 -5% | 193.6 -14% | 227.8 1% | 245 ? 8% | 271 ? 20% |
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 42.3 °C / 108 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 40.1 °C / 104 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 34.2 °C / 94 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 69.9% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 69.9% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 69.9% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (120.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 87% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 3% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 96% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Realme X50 Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.1% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 30% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 61% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 50% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 42% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0.1 / 0.3 Watt |
| Ocioso |  2 / 3.1 / 4 Watt |
| Carga |
6.4 / 11.6 Watt |
    
| |
| Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro 4700 mAh | LG Velvet 4300 mAh | Realme X50 Pro 4200 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 10 4780 mAh | Nubia RedMagic 5G 4500 mAh | Xiaomi Black Shark 3 4720 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 55% | 40% | 50% | 38% | 24% | 29% | 42% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 2 | 0.66 67% | 1 50% | 0.53 73% | 1.1 45% | 1.2 40% | 1.133 ? 43% | 0.897 ? 55% |
| Idle Average * | 3.1 | 1.58 49% | 1.77 43% | 1.46 53% | 1.5 52% | 2.1 32% | 2.23 ? 28% | 1.452 ? 53% |
| Idle Maximum * | 4 | 1.6 60% | 1.86 53% | 1.52 62% | 1.71 57% | 2.5 37% | 2.45 ? 39% | 1.629 ? 59% |
| Load Average * | 6.4 | 3.3 48% | 4.23 34% | 3.83 40% | 4.84 24% | 6.3 2% | 5.26 ? 18% | 5.55 ? 13% |
| Load Maximum * | 11.6 | 5.46 53% | 9.13 21% | 8.89 23% | 10.42 10% | 10.7 8% | 9.68 ? 17% | 8.31 ? 28% |
* ... smaller is better
| Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro 4700 mAh | LG Velvet 4300 mAh | Realme X50 Pro 4200 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 10 4780 mAh | Nubia RedMagic 5G 4500 mAh | Xiaomi Black Shark 3 4720 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -20% | -25% | -20% | -41% | -29% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1954 | 1507 -23% | 1789 -8% | 1487 -24% | ||
| H.264 | 1466 | 1029 -30% | 1126 -23% | 899 -39% | ||
| WiFi v1.3 | 923 | 741 -20% | 775 -16% | 662 -28% | 614 -33% | 703 -24% |
| Load | 286 | 194 -32% | 226 -21% | 149 -48% | 206 -28% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto do Poco F2 Pro - Excelente Smartphone de 60-Hz
Com o Poco F2 Pro, a Xiaomi conseguiu mais uma vez lançar um smartphone de gama média bem completo. Embora o modelo deste ano não seja tão barato quanto o Pocophone F1, o preço demandado de cerca de 430 Euros (~US$ 505) para o modelo de 128 GB ainda o torna uma oferta interessante - isso é ainda mais reforçado pelo fato de a versão de 256 GB estar frequentemente à venda por 450 Euros (~US$ 530) durante nossa análise.
O Poco F2 Pro oferece um painel OLED muito brilhante e bem calibrado, bateria de longa duração e um design moderno sem um entalhe ou um furo para interromper a tela. Além disso, a qualidade da construção é alta e o desempenho atinge quase, mas não exatamente, níveis de carros-chefes graças ao Snapdragon 865 e armazenamento UFS 3.1.
Quem não precisar de 90 Hz e uma boa configuração da câmera descobrirá que o Poco F2 Pro tem muito a oferecer por um preço relativamente barato.
Infelizmente, a Xiaomi equipou o seu mais recente modelo de telefone Poco com um painel de apenas 60 Hz que exibe animações e rolagem menos fluida do que seus concorrentes internos Black Shark 3 ou Xiaomi Mi 10. Da mesma forma, o F2 Poco vem apenas com um único alto-falante integrado que produz uma experiência de áudio muito convincente. Comparado aos concorrentes de gama alta, também serão necessários compromissos no que diz respeito à qualidade da câmera. Devido à falta de uma lente telefoto e à qualidade bastante ruim da lente ultra grande angular, o telefone Poco parece muito menos flexível do que os telefones Android carros-chefes com câmera.
Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro
-
08/31/2022 v7
Marcus Herbrich
Pricecompare
