Breve Análise do Smartphone Xiaomi Pocophone F1

Name: Xiaomi Pocophone F1
Brand: Xiaomi

Price Cruncher – O Xiaomi Pocophone F1 é um smartphone com hardware topo de gama, que tem uma boa câmara e bateria de longa duração, mas custa menos de 350 €. Descubra nesta análise se o conceito da Xiaomi de um carro-chefe acessível funciona e que recortes foram feitos para manter o custo baixo.

Daniel Schmidt, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, ✓ Felicitas Krohn (traduzido por Ricardo Soto), 10/03/2018

Android Smartphone Touchscreen

Test device courtesy of cyberport.de

Download your licensed rating image as PNG / SVG

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 Adreno 630, SD 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	677 MBit/s ∼100% 0%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 Adreno 630, SD 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	675 (min: 630, max: 704) MBit/s ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus Mali-G72 MP18, Exynos 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	652 MBit/s ∼96% -3%
OnePlus 6 Adreno 630, SD 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	609 MBit/s ∼90% -10%
Average of class Smartphone (5.9 - 1368, n=534)	256 MBit/s ∼38% -62%
Honor 10 Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	210 MBit/s ∼31% -69%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium Adreno 630, SD 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	647 MBit/s ∼100% 0%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 Adreno 630, SD 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	647 (min: 598, max: 665) MBit/s ∼100%
OnePlus 6 Adreno 630, SD 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	612 MBit/s ∼95% -5%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus Mali-G72 MP18, Exynos 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	519 MBit/s ∼80% -20%
Average of class Smartphone (9.4 - 1544, n=534)	242 MBit/s ∼37% -63%
Honor 10 Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	236 MBit/s ∼36% -64%

; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø674 (630-704)

; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø647 (598-665)

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 1 Scene 2 Scene 3

click to load images

click to load images

click to load images


483 cd/m²	468 cd/m²	477 cd/m²
502 cd/m²	489 cd/m²	483 cd/m²
498 cd/m²	483 cd/m²	494 cd/m²

Distribuição do brilho

X-Rite i1Pro 2

Máximo: 502 cd/m² Médio: 486.3 cd/m² Minimum: 1.09 cd/m²
iluminação: 93 %
iluminação com acumulador: 489 cd/m²
Contraste: 1438:1 (Preto: 0.34 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.8 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.9
ΔE Greyscale 4.4 | 0.64-98 Ø6.1
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	Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.2	LG G7 ThinQ IPS, 3120x1440, 6.1
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)

ℹ

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

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: 50 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 18284 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 2500000) Hz was measured.

Display Response Times

ℹ

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
24 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 9.2 ms rise
24 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 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. » 34 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (24.8 ms).
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
44 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 21.6 ms rise
44 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 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 0.9 (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 (39.3 ms).

AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	227026 Points ∼99%
Honor 10	174272 Points ∼76% -23%
OnePlus 6	230421 Points ∼100% +1%
Nokia 7 Plus	117165 Points ∼51% -48%
LG G7 ThinQ	223464 Points ∼97% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	222290 Points ∼96% -2%
Huawei P20 Pro	179709 Points ∼78% -21%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	226124 Points ∼98% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (162183 - 242953, n=23)	225534 Points ∼98% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (5600 - 293444, n=490)	87858 Points ∼38% -61%

AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	263165 Points ∼95%
Honor 10	205297 Points ∼74% -22%
OnePlus 6	266686 Points ∼96% +1%
Nokia 7 Plus	141701 Points ∼51% -46%
LG G7 ThinQ	256276 Points ∼92% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	250577 Points ∼90% -5%
Huawei P20 Pro	207959 Points ∼75% -21%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	246366 Points ∼89% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (246366 - 299878, n=27)	277434 Points ∼100% +5%
Average of class Smartphone (17073 - 462516, n=297)	143610 Points ∼52% -45%

PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	8101 Points ∼97%
Honor 10	7046 Points ∼84% -13%
OnePlus 6	8282 Points ∼99% +2%
Nokia 7 Plus	6077 Points ∼73% -25%
LG G7 ThinQ	7717 Points ∼92% -5%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	5319 Points ∼64% -34%
Huawei P20 Pro	6982 Points ∼83% -14%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	8178 Points ∼98% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7360 - 9868, n=27)	8368 Points ∼100% +3%
Average of class Smartphone (2630 - 12879, n=466)	5703 Points ∼68% -30%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	9664 Points ∼95%
Honor 10	8530 Points ∼84% -12%
OnePlus 6	9630 Points ∼95% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus	6825 Points ∼67% -29%
LG G7 ThinQ	9503 Points ∼94% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	5822 Points ∼58% -40%
Huawei P20 Pro	8115 Points ∼80% -16%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	9858 Points ∼97% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7998 - 13211, n=26)	10123 Points ∼100% +5%
Average of class Smartphone (1077 - 15193, n=626)	6216 Points ∼61% -36%

BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	1296 Points ∼93%
Honor 10	1316 Points ∼94% +2%
OnePlus 6	1386 Points ∼99% +7%
Nokia 7 Plus	1101 Points ∼79% -15%
LG G7 ThinQ	1374 Points ∼98% +6%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	1109 Points ∼79% -14%
Huawei P20 Pro	1273 Points ∼91% -2%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	1400 Points ∼100% +8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (1009 - 1613, n=26)	1344 Points ∼96% +4%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1745, n=689)	794 Points ∼57% -39%
Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	7945 Points ∼100%
Honor 10	4397 Points ∼55% -45%
OnePlus 6	7949 Points ∼100% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus	2298 Points ∼29% -71%
LG G7 ThinQ	7906 Points ∼99% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	6370 Points ∼80% -20%
Huawei P20 Pro	3725 Points ∼47% -53%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	7743 Points ∼97% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5846 - 8001, n=26)	7797 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 16996, n=689)	2336 Points ∼29% -71%
Memory (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	3239 Points ∼80%
Honor 10	3808 Points ∼94% +18%
OnePlus 6	3799 Points ∼94% +17%
Nokia 7 Plus	2503 Points ∼62% -23%
LG G7 ThinQ	3744 Points ∼92% +16%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	2625 Points ∼65% -19%
Huawei P20 Pro	4050 Points ∼100% +25%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	3704 Points ∼91% +14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2193 - 5296, n=26)	3649 Points ∼90% +13%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 8398, n=689)	1724 Points ∼43% -47%
System (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	6506 Points ∼77%
Honor 10	5882 Points ∼70% -10%
OnePlus 6	8228 Points ∼98% +26%
Nokia 7 Plus	4976 Points ∼59% -24%
LG G7 ThinQ	8070 Points ∼96% +24%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	6413 Points ∼76% -1%
Huawei P20 Pro	5965 Points ∼71% -8%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	8418 Points ∼100% +29%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4417 - 8613, n=26)	7644 Points ∼91% +17%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 14189, n=689)	3271 Points ∼39% -50%
Overall (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	3838 Points ∼89%
Honor 10	3374 Points ∼78% -12%
OnePlus 6	4308 Points ∼100% +12%
Nokia 7 Plus	2369 Points ∼55% -38%
LG G7 ThinQ	4257 Points ∼99% +11%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	3302 Points ∼77% -14%
Huawei P20 Pro	3271 Points ∼76% -15%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	4288 Points ∼100% +12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3291 - 4693, n=26)	4111 Points ∼95% +7%
Average of class Smartphone (1 - 6149, n=689)	1656 Points ∼38% -57%

Geekbench 4.4
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	14369 Points ∼100%
Honor 10	8634 Points ∼60% -40%
LG G7 ThinQ	13497 Points ∼94% -6%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	6202 Points ∼43% -57%
Huawei P20 Pro	8025 Points ∼56% -44%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	14417 Points ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (10876 - 14489, n=25)	13578 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (663 - 21070, n=347)	4800 Points ∼33% -67%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	9182 Points ∼100%
Honor 10	6610 Points ∼72% -28%
Nokia 7 Plus	5867 Points ∼64% -36%
LG G7 ThinQ	9029 Points ∼98% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	8963 Points ∼98% -2%
Huawei P20 Pro	6756 Points ∼74% -26%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	8522 Points ∼93% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7754 - 9231, n=27)	8705 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (883 - 13356, n=409)	4894 Points ∼53% -47%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	2468 Points ∼65%
Honor 10	1890 Points ∼50% -23%
Nokia 7 Plus	1646 Points ∼44% -33%
LG G7 ThinQ	2448 Points ∼65% -1%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	3776 Points ∼100% +53%
Huawei P20 Pro	1922 Points ∼51% -22%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	2457 Points ∼65% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2272 - 2500, n=27)	2416 Points ∼64% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (390 - 4824, n=409)	1489 Points ∼39% -40%

3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	2528 Points ∼70%
Honor 10	2582 Points ∼71% +2%
OnePlus 6	3432 Points ∼95% +36%
Nokia 7 Plus	2749 Points ∼76% +9%
LG G7 ThinQ	3255 Points ∼90% +29%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	2469 Points ∼68% -2%
Huawei P20 Pro	2926 Points ∼81% +16%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	3620 Points ∼100% +43%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2118 - 3703, n=27)	3217 Points ∼89% +27%
Average of class Smartphone (435 - 5209, n=551)	2014 Points ∼56% -20%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	4746 Points ∼91%
Honor 10	2993 Points ∼57% -37%
OnePlus 6	5212 Points ∼100% +10%
Nokia 7 Plus	1161 Points ∼22% -76%
LG G7 ThinQ	5006 Points ∼96% +5%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	3582 Points ∼69% -25%
Huawei P20 Pro	3017 Points ∼58% -36%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	5190 Points ∼100% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3488 - 5246, n=27)	4919 Points ∼94% +4%
Average of class Smartphone (53 - 8469, n=551)	1670 Points ∼32% -65%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	3972 Points ∼84%
Honor 10	2891 Points ∼61% -27%
OnePlus 6	4673 Points ∼99% +18%
Nokia 7 Plus	1332 Points ∼28% -66%
LG G7 ThinQ	4471 Points ∼94% +13%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	3256 Points ∼69% -18%
Huawei P20 Pro	2996 Points ∼63% -25%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	4734 Points ∼100% +19%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3197 - 4734, n=27)	4388 Points ∼93% +10%
Average of class Smartphone (68 - 7305, n=552)	1596 Points ∼34% -60%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	2720 Points ∼79%
Honor 10	2773 Points ∼80% +2%
OnePlus 6	3452 Points ∼100% +27%
Nokia 7 Plus	2734 Points ∼79% +1%
LG G7 ThinQ	3150 Points ∼91% +16%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	2496 Points ∼72% -8%
Huawei P20 Pro	2885 Points ∼84% +6%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	2541 Points ∼74% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2124 - 3668, n=27)	3115 Points ∼90% +15%
Average of class Smartphone (293 - 5054, n=593)	1880 Points ∼54% -31%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	8261 Points ∼100%
Honor 10	3573 Points ∼43% -57%
OnePlus 6	8252 Points ∼100% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus	1895 Points ∼23% -77%
LG G7 ThinQ	7633 Points ∼92% -8%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	4637 Points ∼56% -44%
Huawei P20 Pro	3335 Points ∼40% -60%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	8219 Points ∼99% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5637 - 8312, n=27)	7763 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (43 - 12494, n=592)	2179 Points ∼26% -74%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	5687 Points ∼90%
Honor 10	3358 Points ∼53% -41%
OnePlus 6	6304 Points ∼100% +11%
Nokia 7 Plus	2035 Points ∼32% -64%
LG G7 ThinQ	5799 Points ∼92% +2%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	3895 Points ∼62% -32%
Huawei P20 Pro	3223 Points ∼51% -43%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	5492 Points ∼87% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4363 - 6454, n=27)	5811 Points ∼92% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (55 - 9492, n=595)	1879 Points ∼30% -67%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	34928 Points ∼95%
Honor 10	21070 Points ∼57% -40%
OnePlus 6	34191 Points ∼93% -2%
Nokia 7 Plus	20085 Points ∼55% -42%
LG G7 ThinQ	27817 Points ∼76% -20%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	26226 Points ∼71% -25%
Huawei P20 Pro	22441 Points ∼61% -36%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	36762 Points ∼100% +5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (15614 - 37475, n=27)	33322 Points ∼91% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (735 - 57583, n=741)	14974 Points ∼41% -57%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	82125 Points ∼100%
Honor 10	32674 Points ∼40% -60%
OnePlus 6	81269 Points ∼99% -1%
Nokia 7 Plus	29333 Points ∼36% -64%
LG G7 ThinQ	80534 Points ∼98% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	46610 Points ∼57% -43%
Huawei P20 Pro	33472 Points ∼41% -59%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	81502 Points ∼99% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (53794 - 85487, n=27)	80548 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (536 - 209431, n=739)	24747 Points ∼30% -70%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	63159 Points ∼98%
Honor 10	29111 Points ∼45% -54%
OnePlus 6	62241 Points ∼97% -1%
Nokia 7 Plus	26610 Points ∼41% -58%
LG G7 ThinQ	56669 Points ∼88% -10%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	39745 Points ∼62% -37%
Huawei P20 Pro	30176 Points ∼47% -52%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	64152 Points ∼100% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (34855 - 65330, n=27)	61139 Points ∼95% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (662 - 110468, n=739)	19625 Points ∼31% -69%

GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	150 fps ∼100%
Honor 10	124 fps ∼83% -17%
OnePlus 6	150 fps ∼100% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus	50 fps ∼33% -67%
LG G7 ThinQ	144 fps ∼96% -4%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	147 fps ∼98% -2%
Huawei P20 Pro	121 fps ∼81% -19%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	150 fps ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (98 - 152, n=28)	142 fps ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (0.5 - 322, n=754)	42.5 fps ∼28% -72%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	60 fps ∼97%
Honor 10	59 fps ∼95% -2%
OnePlus 6	60 fps ∼97% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus	48 fps ∼77% -20%
LG G7 ThinQ	60 fps ∼97% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	60 fps ∼97% 0%
Huawei P20 Pro	60 fps ∼97% 0%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	60 fps ∼97% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (58 - 89, n=27)	62.1 fps ∼100% +4%
Average of class Smartphone (1 - 120, n=763)	29.9 fps ∼48% -50%

GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	71 fps ∼96%
Honor 10	59 fps ∼80% -17%
OnePlus 6	66 fps ∼89% -7%
Nokia 7 Plus	23 fps ∼31% -68%
LG G7 ThinQ	63 fps ∼85% -11%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	74 fps ∼100% +4%
Huawei P20 Pro	61 fps ∼82% -14%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	71 fps ∼96% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (54 - 83, n=27)	73.1 fps ∼99% +3%
Average of class Smartphone (0.8 - 175, n=659)	25 fps ∼34% -65%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	58 fps ∼100%
Honor 10	50 fps ∼86% -14%
OnePlus 6	58 fps ∼100% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus	22 fps ∼38% -62%
LG G7 ThinQ	41 fps ∼71% -29%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	45 fps ∼78% -22%
Huawei P20 Pro	54 fps ∼93% -7%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	58 fps ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (33 - 75, n=27)	54.4 fps ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (1.2 - 115, n=667)	21.2 fps ∼37% -63%

GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	35 fps ∼60%
Honor 10	39 fps ∼67% +11%
OnePlus 6	56 fps ∼97% +60%
Nokia 7 Plus	14 fps ∼24% -60%
LG G7 ThinQ	51 fps ∼88% +46%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	47 fps ∼81% +34%
Huawei P20 Pro	39 fps ∼67% +11%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	58 fps ∼100% +66%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (32 - 61, n=28)	53.9 fps ∼93% +54%
Average of class Smartphone (0.87 - 117, n=522)	20.1 fps ∼35% -43%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	54 fps ∼96%
Honor 10	34 fps ∼61% -37%
OnePlus 6	54 fps ∼96% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus	15 fps ∼27% -72%
LG G7 ThinQ	26 fps ∼46% -52%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	24 fps ∼43% -56%
Huawei P20 Pro	36 fps ∼64% -33%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	56 fps ∼100% +4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (21 - 59, n=27)	45.3 fps ∼81% -16%
Average of class Smartphone (1.2 - 110, n=524)	18.5 fps ∼33% -66%

GFXBench
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	35 fps ∼100%
Honor 10	23 fps ∼66% -34%
OnePlus 6	35 fps ∼100% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus	8.3 fps ∼24% -76%
LG G7 ThinQ	33 fps ∼94% -6%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	28 fps ∼80% -20%
Huawei P20 Pro	23 fps ∼66% -34%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	35 fps ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (25 - 35, n=27)	33.4 fps ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (0.6 - 73, n=447)	13.7 fps ∼39% -61%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Pocophone F1	33 fps ∼89%
Honor 10	20 fps ∼54% -39%
OnePlus 6	32 fps ∼86% -3%
Nokia 7 Plus	9.1 fps ∼25% -72%
LG G7 ThinQ	17 fps ∼46% -48%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	14 fps ∼38% -58%
Huawei P20 Pro	22 fps ∼59% -33%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium	37 fps ∼100% +12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (13 - 37, n=27)	27.7 fps ∼75% -16%
Average of class Smartphone (1.1 - 60, n=451)	12.1 fps ∼33% -63%

Lightmark - 1920x1080 1080p (sort by value)
Nokia 7 Plus	15.07 fps ∼42%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	35.83 fps ∼100%
Huawei P20 Pro	25.93 fps ∼72%
Average of class Smartphone (0.74 - 38.7, n=71)	12.3 fps ∼34%

Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sort by value)
OnePlus 6	1169 Points ∼79%
Nokia 7 Plus	349 Points ∼24%
LG G7 ThinQ	1176 Points ∼79%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus	1481 Points ∼100%
Huawei P20 Pro	887 Points ∼60%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (1169 - 1201, n=5)	1179 Points ∼80%
Average of class Smartphone (35 - 3575, n=125)	837 Points ∼57%

Legend

Xiaomi Pocophone F1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

Honor 10 HiSilicon Kirin 970, ARM Mali-G72 MP12, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

OnePlus 6 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

Nokia 7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Qualcomm Adreno 512, 64 GB eMMC Flash

LG G7 ThinQ Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus Samsung Exynos 9810, ARM Mali-G72 MP18, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

Huawei P20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 970, ARM Mali-G72 MP12, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

Qualcomm Snapdragon 845">Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845

Average of class Smartphone

JetStream 1.1 | Octane V2 | Mozilla Kraken 1.1 | WebXPRT 2015

JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66)	88.081 Points ∼100% +16%
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)	87.695 Points ∼100% +15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (22.5 - 90.9, n=25)	80.3 Points ∼91% +6%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Chrome 68)	75.959 Points ∼86%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium (Chrome 68)	71.172 Points ∼81% -6%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0)	69.59 Points ∼79% -8%
Huawei P20 Pro (Chrome 65)	58.255 Points ∼66% -23%
Honor 10 (Chrome 66)	56.506 Points ∼64% -26%
Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60)	53.89 Points ∼61% -29%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 302, n=584)	45.2 Points ∼51% -40%

Octane V2 - Total Score
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)	17026 Points ∼100% +17%
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66)	16720 Points ∼98% +15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3991 - 18275, n=28)	15153 Points ∼89% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0)	14760 Points ∼87% +2%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Chrome 68)	14514 Points ∼85%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium (Chrome 68)	13360 Points ∼78% -8%
Huawei P20 Pro (Chrome 65)	11584 Points ∼68% -20%
Honor 10 (Chrome 66)	10965 Points ∼64% -24%
Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60)	10945 Points ∼64% -25%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=747)	7452 Points ∼44% -49%

Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (550 - 59466, n=772)	10082 ms * ∼100% -272%
Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60)	3937.3 ms * ∼39% -45%
Honor 10 (Chrome 66)	3899 ms * ∼39% -44%
Huawei P20 Pro (Chrome 65)	3852.2 ms * ∼38% -42%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium (Chrome 68)	3179 ms * ∼32% -17%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2154 - 11204, n=28)	2905 ms * ∼29% -7%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Chrome 68)	2713.6 ms * ∼27%
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66)	2484.1 ms * ∼25% +8%
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)	2445 ms * ∼24% +10%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0)	2059.7 ms * ∼20% +24%

WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)	252 Points ∼100% +13%
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66)	252 Points ∼100% +13%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (96 - 291, n=23)	246 Points ∼98% +10%
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Chrome 68)	223 Points ∼88%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium (Chrome 68)	211 Points ∼84% -5%
Huawei P20 Pro (Chrome 65)	182 Points ∼72% -18%
Honor 10 (Chrome 66)	182 Points ∼72% -18%
Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60)	168 Points ∼67% -25%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0)	164 Points ∼65% -26%
Average of class Smartphone (27 - 362, n=343)	124 Points ∼49% -44%

* ... 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%	45%	-17%
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%			51.1 (17.1 - 71.9, n=28) -22%	50.5 (1.7 - 87.1, n=491) -23%
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%			67.4 (18 - 86.6, n=28) -21%	68.6 (8.1 - 96.5, n=491) -20%
Random Write 4KB	17.81	19.62 10%	23.26 31%	22.74 28%	21.75 22%	163 815%	21.8 22%	62.8 (8.77 - 165, n=39) 253%	30 (0.14 - 272, n=831) 68%
Random Read 4KB	101.01	54.65 -46%	110.46 9%	129.68 28%	135.99 35%	145.88 44%	137 36%	134 (78.2 - 173, n=39) 33%	54.6 (1.59 - 265, n=831) -46%
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=39) 28%	114 (2.99 - 750, n=831) -27%
Sequential Read 256KB	705.38	283.12 -60%	695.15 -1%	818.69 16%	748.59 6%	827.69 17%	725.6 3%	715 (484 - 895, n=39) 1%	315 (12.1 - 1781, n=831) -55%

PUBG Mobile

; Balanced; 0.8.0: Ø38.6 (11-41)

; HD; 0.8.0: Ø39.6 (18-41)

Arena of Valor

; 1.24.1.2: Ø59.4 (34-60)

Carga Máxima

Inatividade


33.6 °C	33.8 °C	35.1 °C
33.8 °C	33 °C	34.7 °C
33.2 °C	33 °C	34.7 °C

Máximo: 35.1 °C
Médio: 33.9 °C


30.5 °C	32 °C	33.9 °C
29.3 °C	31.4 °C	32.9 °C
29.6 °C	31.9 °C	32 °C

Máximo: 33.9 °C
Médio: 31.5 °C

alimentação elétrica 24.6 °C | Temperatura do quarto 20.2 °C | Voltcraft IR-260

(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 33.9 °C / 93 F, compared to the average of 33 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 35.1 °C / 95 F, compared to the average of 35.4 °C / 96 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 34 °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 33 °C / 91 F.

Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)

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
» 42% of all tested devices in this class were better, 14% similar, 45% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 63% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 28% 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
» 46% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 41% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 66% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 26% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Consumo de energia

desligado	0.01 / 0.18 Watt
Ocioso	0.65 / 1.97 / 2.01 Watt
Carga	4.29 / 9.05 Watt


Key: min: , med: , max: Metrahit Energy

	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%	0.882 (0.2 - 3.4, n=842) -36%
Idle Average *	1.97	1.76 11%	2.26 -15%	1 49%	0.95 52%	1.728 (0.67 - 2.9, n=26) 12%	1.748 (0.6 - 6.2, n=841) 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%	2.03 (0.74 - 6.6, n=842) -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%	4.09 (0.8 - 10.8, n=836) 5%
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%	6.03 (1.2 - 14.2, n=836) 33%

* ... smaller is better

Tempo de Execução da Bateria

Ocioso (sem WLAN, min brilho)		34h 48min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3 (Chrome 68)		13h 28min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p		15h 36min
Carga (máximo brilho)		3h 40min

	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

+ SoC veloz

+ Memória expansível

+ 6 GB de RAM

+ Boas câmeras

+ Duração da bateria impressionante

+ Suporte para aptX HD

+ Tecnologia de reconhecimento facial decente

+ Wi-Fi MIMO rápido

Contra

- Apenas doze meses de garantia

- Qualidade média das chamadas

- Sem NFC

- Afogamento térmico pesado

- Sem Amazon ou Netflix HD

- Anúncios, anúncios, anúncios

The Xiaomi Pocophone F1 review. Test device courtesy of Cyberport.

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 - 2019-11-0411/04/2019 v7
Daniel Schmidt

Acabamento

80%

Teclado

67 / 75 → 89%

Mouse

89%

Conectividade

52 / 70 → 74%

Peso

90%

Bateria

90%

Pantalha

86%

Desempenho do jogos

47 / 64 → 73%

Desempenho da aplicação

69 / 86 → 80%

Temperatura

92%

Ruído

100%

Audio

70 / 90 → 78%

Camera

55%

Médio

76%

82%

Smartphone - Médio equilibrado

Linked Articles

Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Pocophone F Serie)