Breve Análise do Smartphone Xiaomi Pocophone F1
Secondary Camera: 20 MPix
Os Top 10
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Multimídia
» Os Top 10 Portáteis de Jogos
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Leves para Jogos
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Acessíveis de Escritório/Empresariais
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Premium de Escritório/Empresariais
» Os Top 10 dos Portáteis Workstation
» Os Top 10 Subportáteis
» Os Top 10 Ultrabooks
» Os Top 10 Conversíveis
» Os Top 10 Tablets
» Os Top 10 Smartphones
» A melhores Telas de Portáteis Analisadas Pela Notebookcheck
» Top 10 dos portáteis abaixo dos 500 Euros da Notebookcheck
» Top 10 dos Portáteis abaixo dos 300 Euros
Size Comparison
Networking | |
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10 | |
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
OnePlus 6 | |
Average of class Smartphone (5.9 - 1414, n=641) | |
Honor 10 | |
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10 | |
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
OnePlus 6 | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
Average of class Smartphone (9.4 - 1599, n=641) | |
Honor 10 |
|
iluminação: 93 %
iluminação com acumulador: 489 cd/m²
Contraste: 1438:1 (Preto: 0.34 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.8 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.7
ΔE Greyscale 4.4 | 0.64-98 Ø5.9
99.5% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.22
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 IPS, 2246x1080, 6.18 | Honor 10 IPS, 2280x1080, 5.84 | OnePlus 6 Optic AMOLED, 2280x1080, 6.28 | Nokia 7 Plus IPS, 2160x1080, 6.00 | Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.20 | LG G7 ThinQ IPS, 3120x1440, 6.10 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | 9% | 15% | 7% | 27% | 7% | |
Brightness middle | 489 | 555 13% | 430 -12% | 458 -6% | 565 16% | 974 99% |
Brightness | 486 | 537 10% | 437 -10% | 463 -5% | 571 17% | 975 101% |
Brightness Distribution | 93 | 94 1% | 87 -6% | 92 -1% | 96 3% | 96 3% |
Black Level * | 0.34 | 0.39 -15% | 0.22 35% | 0.49 -44% | ||
Contrast | 1438 | 1423 -1% | 2082 45% | 1988 38% | ||
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 * | 3.8 | 2.3 39% | 2.3 39% | 4 -5% | 2.3 39% | 5.4 -42% |
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. * | 7.1 | 6 15% | 4.6 35% | 7.4 -4% | 4.8 32% | 13.1 -85% |
Greyscale DeltaE2000 * | 4.4 | 3.9 11% | 2.4 45% | 4.7 -7% | 1.9 57% | 5 -14% |
Gamma | 2.22 99% | 2.19 100% | 2.28 96% | 2.19 100% | 2.16 102% | 2.31 95% |
CCT | 7213 90% | 6212 105% | 6160 106% | 7425 88% | 6332 103% | 7480 87% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 2315 Hz | ≤ 20 % brightness setting | |
The display backlight flickers at 2315 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 20 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 2315 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9725 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured. |
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
24 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 9.2 ms rise | |
↘ 14.8 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. » 36 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (24.4 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
44 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 21.6 ms rise | |
↘ 22.4 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 636 (maximum) ms. » 63 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (38.7 ms). |
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Honor 10 | |
OnePlus 6 | |
Nokia 7 Plus | |
LG G7 ThinQ | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
Huawei P20 Pro | |
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (162183 - 242953, n=23) | |
Average of class Smartphone (5600 - 293444, n=490) |
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Honor 10 | |
OnePlus 6 | |
Nokia 7 Plus | |
LG G7 ThinQ | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
Huawei P20 Pro | |
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (246366 - 299878, n=27) | |
Average of class Smartphone (17073 - 462516, n=297) |
PCMark for Android | |
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Honor 10 | |
OnePlus 6 | |
Nokia 7 Plus | |
LG G7 ThinQ | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
Huawei P20 Pro | |
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7360 - 9868, n=27) | |
Average of class Smartphone (82 - 15299, n=567) | |
Work performance score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Honor 10 | |
OnePlus 6 | |
Nokia 7 Plus | |
LG G7 ThinQ | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
Huawei P20 Pro | |
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7998 - 13211, n=26) | |
Average of class Smartphone (1077 - 19989, n=716) |
Geekbench 4.1 - 4.4 | |
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Honor 10 | |
LG G7 ThinQ | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
Huawei P20 Pro | |
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (10876 - 14489, n=25) | |
Average of class Smartphone (663 - 21070, n=365) | |
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Honor 10 | |
Nokia 7 Plus | |
LG G7 ThinQ | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
Huawei P20 Pro | |
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7754 - 9231, n=27) | |
Average of class Smartphone (883 - 14476, n=432) | |
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Honor 10 | |
Nokia 7 Plus | |
LG G7 ThinQ | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
Huawei P20 Pro | |
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2272 - 2500, n=27) | |
Average of class Smartphone (390 - 4970, n=432) |
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | |
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Honor 10 | |
OnePlus 6 | |
Nokia 7 Plus | |
LG G7 ThinQ | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
Huawei P20 Pro | |
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (98 - 152, n=28) | |
Average of class Smartphone (0.5 - 322, n=834) | |
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Honor 10 | |
OnePlus 6 | |
Nokia 7 Plus | |
LG G7 ThinQ | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
Huawei P20 Pro | |
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (58 - 89, n=27) | |
Average of class Smartphone (1 - 142, n=843) |
GFXBench 3.0 | |
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Honor 10 | |
OnePlus 6 | |
Nokia 7 Plus | |
LG G7 ThinQ | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
Huawei P20 Pro | |
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (54 - 83, n=27) | |
Average of class Smartphone (0.8 - 180, n=739) | |
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Honor 10 | |
OnePlus 6 | |
Nokia 7 Plus | |
LG G7 ThinQ | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
Huawei P20 Pro | |
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (33 - 75, n=27) | |
Average of class Smartphone (1.2 - 117, n=747) |
GFXBench 3.1 | |
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Honor 10 | |
OnePlus 6 | |
Nokia 7 Plus | |
LG G7 ThinQ | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
Huawei P20 Pro | |
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (32 - 61, n=28) | |
Average of class Smartphone (0.87 - 117, n=602) | |
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Honor 10 | |
OnePlus 6 | |
Nokia 7 Plus | |
LG G7 ThinQ | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
Huawei P20 Pro | |
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (21 - 59, n=27) | |
Average of class Smartphone (1.2 - 110, n=604) |
GFXBench | |
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Honor 10 | |
OnePlus 6 | |
Nokia 7 Plus | |
LG G7 ThinQ | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
Huawei P20 Pro | |
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (25 - 35, n=27) | |
Average of class Smartphone (0.6 - 75, n=527) | |
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Honor 10 | |
OnePlus 6 | |
Nokia 7 Plus | |
LG G7 ThinQ | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
Huawei P20 Pro | |
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (13 - 37, n=27) | |
Average of class Smartphone (1.1 - 60, n=531) |
Lightmark - 1920x1080 1080p (sort by value) | |
Nokia 7 Plus | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
Huawei P20 Pro | |
Average of class Smartphone (0.74 - 38.7, n=71) |
Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sort by value) | |
OnePlus 6 | |
Nokia 7 Plus | |
LG G7 ThinQ | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
Huawei P20 Pro | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (1169 - 1201, n=5) | |
Average of class Smartphone (35 - 3575, n=148) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66) | |
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (22.5 - 90.9, n=25) | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Chrome 68) | |
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium (Chrome 68) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
Huawei P20 Pro (Chrome 65) | |
Honor 10 (Chrome 66) | |
Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60) | |
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 375, n=659) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66) | |
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3991 - 18275, n=28) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Chrome 68) | |
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium (Chrome 68) | |
Huawei P20 Pro (Chrome 65) | |
Honor 10 (Chrome 66) | |
Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60) | |
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 58632, n=829) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (460 - 59466, n=855) | |
Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60) | |
Honor 10 (Chrome 66) | |
Huawei P20 Pro (Chrome 65) | |
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium (Chrome 68) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2154 - 11204, n=28) | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Chrome 68) | |
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66) | |
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0) |
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score | |
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66) | |
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (96 - 291, n=23) | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Chrome 68) | |
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium (Chrome 68) | |
Huawei P20 Pro (Chrome 65) | |
Honor 10 (Chrome 66) | |
Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
Average of class Smartphone (165 - 362, n=347) |
* ... smaller is better
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | Nokia 7 Plus | LG G7 ThinQ | Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium | Honor 10 | OnePlus 6 | Average 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | -12% | 8% | 17% | -7% | 225% | 23% | 51% | -2% | |
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 65.58 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | 62.31 -5% | 62.67 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) -4% | 67.18 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 2% | 30.23 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) -54% | 51.8 (17.1 - 71.9, n=32) -21% | 51.6 (1.7 - 87.1, n=564) -21% | ||
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 85.3 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | 82.21 -4% | 84.72 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) -1% | 79.22 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) -7% | 34.18 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) -60% | 68.1 (18 - 87.1, n=32) -20% | 69.5 (8.1 - 96.5, n=564) -19% | ||
Random Write 4KB | 17.81 | 19.62 10% | 23.26 31% | 22.74 28% | 21.75 22% | 163 815% | 21.8 22% | 68.8 (8.77 - 165, n=43) 286% | 40.2 (0.14 - 319, n=935) 126% |
Random Read 4KB | 101.01 | 54.65 -46% | 110.46 9% | 129.68 28% | 135.99 35% | 145.88 44% | 137 36% | 133 (78.2 - 173, n=43) 32% | 63.1 (1.59 - 325, n=935) -38% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 155.57 | 211.6 36% | 176.45 13% | 204.94 32% | 170.98 10% | 192.12 23% | 201.4 29% | 199 (133 - 388, n=43) 28% | 139 (2.99 - 1321, n=935) -11% |
Sequential Read 256KB | 705.38 | 283.12 -60% | 695.15 -1% | 818.69 16% | 748.59 6% | 827.69 17% | 725.6 3% | 703 (476 - 895, n=43) 0% | 363 (12.1 - 2037, n=935) -49% |
PUBG Mobile
Arena of Valor
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 35.1 °C / 95 F, compared to the average of 35.2 °C / 95 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 33.9 °C / 93 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.6 °C / 83 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.2% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (10.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 45% of all tested devices in this class were better, 13% similar, 42% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 65% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 26% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 34.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 49% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 39% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 68% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 24% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%
desligado | ![]() ![]() |
Ocioso | ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Carga |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Key:
min: ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 4000 mAh | Nokia 7 Plus 3800 mAh | Honor 10 3400 mAh | OnePlus 6 3300 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus 3500 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | 3% | -22% | 16% | 26% | -8% | 2% | |
Idle Minimum * | 0.65 | 0.65 -0% | 1.12 -72% | 0.6 8% | 0.68 -5% | 0.862 (0.42 - 1.8, n=26) -33% | 0.89 (0.2 - 3.4, n=926) -37% |
Idle Average * | 1.97 | 1.76 11% | 2.26 -15% | 1 49% | 0.95 52% | 1.728 (0.67 - 2.9, n=26) 12% | 1.758 (0.6 - 6.2, n=925) 11% |
Idle Maximum * | 2.01 | 1.78 11% | 2.3 -14% | 1.6 20% | 1.09 46% | 2.07 (0.87 - 3.5, n=26) -3% | 2.04 (0.74 - 6.6, n=926) -1% |
Load Average * | 4.29 | 4.47 -4% | 5.14 -20% | 4.3 -0% | 4.58 -7% | 4.87 (3.56 - 7.41, n=26) -14% | 4.12 (0.8 - 10.8, n=920) 4% |
Load Maximum * | 9.05 | 9.13 -1% | 7.89 13% | 8.6 5% | 5.16 43% | 9.27 (6.2 - 12.3, n=26) -2% | 6.13 (1.2 - 14.2, n=920) 32% |
* ... smaller is better
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 4000 mAh | Honor 10 3400 mAh | OnePlus 6 3300 mAh | Nokia 7 Plus 3800 mAh | LG G7 ThinQ 3000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus 3500 mAh | Huawei P20 Pro 4000 mAh | Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium 3540 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | -23% | -6% | -22% | -8% | -23% | 4% | -26% | |
Reader / Idle | 2088 | 1162 -44% | 1806 -14% | 1703 -18% | 1662 -20% | 1343 -36% | 1727 -17% | 1347 -35% |
H.264 | 936 | 662 -29% | 791 -15% | 706 -25% | 908 -3% | 674 -28% | 784 -16% | 520 -44% |
WiFi v1.3 | 808 | 663 -18% | 762 -6% | 672 -17% | 591 -27% | 521 -36% | 744 -8% | 547 -32% |
Load | 220 | 216 -2% | 246 12% | 158 -28% | 260 18% | 237 8% | 345 57% | 235 7% |
Pro
Contra
A Xiaomi revigorizou o conceito original da OnePlus de criar um smartphone carro-chefe a um preço baixo. O Xiaomi Pocophone F1 se desempenhou bem em praticamente todos nossos testes, especialmente no que diz respeito à duração da bateria, qualidade da câmera e desempenho.
Nosso dispositivo de teste utiliza bem o SoC Snapdragon 845, mas o Pocophone não consegue atender as expectativas de sua tecnologia LiquidCool. Infelizmente, o SO nos bombardeou com anúncios, enquanto a falta do Amazon e Netflix HD poder ser um ponto decisivo para alguns.
O Xiaomi Pocophone F1 oferece um ótimo valor pelo dinheiro, particularmente pelo seu poderoso SoC, duração impressionante da bateria e excelentes câmeras. No entanto, para este preço, você terá que viver com alguns recortes.
O Pocophone poderia ter uma tela mais brilhante e melhor calibrada, mas a Xiaomi tinha que reduzir custos em algum lugar. A tela somente será um problemas quando quiser utilizar o dispositivo sob a luz do sol. Mas gostamos das câmeras. Certamente existem melhores câmeras lá fora, mas não muitas a este preço.
Nosso dispositivos de teste também tem outros pontos fracos, como a qualidade das chamadas e a recepção de rede, que são piores que os da concorrência. O design plástico é simples e obsoleto, em nossa opinião, mas isto é subjetivo.
O Xiaomi Pocophone F1 certamente é um forte candidato para aqueles que não desejam gastar mais de €350 em um smartphone.
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 - 11/04/2019 v7
Daniel Schmidt