Notebookcheck

Breve Análise do Smartphone Xiaomi Pocophone F1

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),
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Pocophone F Serie)
Placa gráfica
Memória
6144 MB 
Pantalha
6.18 polegadas 18.7:9, 2246 x 1080 pixel 403 PPI, Tela multitouch capacitiva de dez dedos, IPS, Brilhante: sim
Disco rígido
64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 64 GB 
, 52 GB livre
Conexões
1 USB 2.0, Conexões Audio: Conector de 3,5 mm, Card Reader: microSD, 1 Leitor de Impressões Digitais, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensores: Acelerômetro, Bússola Eletrônica, G-sensor, Hall sensor, sensor de proximidade, Reconhecimento facial com infravermelho, BeiDou
Funcionamento em rede
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM/GPRS/EDGE: 850, 900, 1,800, 1,900 MHz. UMTS/HSPA+: Bands 1, 2, 5, 8. LTE Cat. 16: Bands 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 38, 40, 41., Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Tamanho
altura x largura x profundidade (em mm): 8.8 x 155.5 x 75.2
Bateria
4000 mAh Lítio-Polímero
Sistema Operativo
Android 8.1 Oreo
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix Dual camera: 12 MP – f/1.9, 1/2.55”, 1.4 μm; 5 MP – f/2.0, 1.12 μm
Secondary Camera: 20 MPix
Características adicionais
Teclado: Teclado virtual, Carregador, cabo USB Type-A para USB Type-C, SIM tool, Silicon case, Guia de início rápido, MIUI 9.5, 12 Meses Garantia, SAR values: Body – 1.582 W/kg; Head – 0.537 W/kg, fanless
peso
182 g
Preço
349 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Size Comparison

158.4 mm 75.64 mm 9.55 mm 186 g158.1 mm 73.8 mm 8.5 mm 189 g155.5 mm 75.2 mm 8.8 mm 182 g155.7 mm 75.4 mm 7.75 mm 177 g155 mm 73.88 mm 7.65 mm 174 g153.2 mm 71.9 mm 7.9 mm 162 g149.6 mm 71.2 mm 7.7 mm 153 g
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%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700710Tooltip
; 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 1Scene 2Scene 3
click to load images
Photo of our test chart
Photo of our test chart
Test chart in detail
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)

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

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
↘ 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
↘ 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
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 F1Nokia 7 PlusLG G7 ThinQSamsung Galaxy S9 PlusSony Xperia XZ2 PremiumHonor 10OnePlus 6Average 64 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage 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
01020304050Tooltip
; Balanced; 0.8.0: Ø38.6 (11-41)
; HD; 0.8.0: Ø39.6 (18-41)
Arena of Valor
0102030405060Tooltip
; 1.24.1.2: Ø59.4 (34-60)
Carga Máxima
 33.6 °C33.8 °C35.1 °C 
 33.8 °C33 °C34.7 °C 
 33.2 °C33 °C34.7 °C 
Máximo: 35.1 °C
Médio: 33.9 °C
30.5 °C32 °C33.9 °C
29.3 °C31.4 °C32.9 °C
29.6 °C31.9 °C32 °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.
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2035.430.12533.236.83123.730.14031.933.15039.738.86330.233.98025.221.510021.923.812522.326.416019.338.320016.646.925016.347.931516.552.44001858.750015.463.763015.663.180014.269.6100014.876.3125014.672.6160014.468.4200014.575.2250014.870.8315014.674.1400014.871.6500014.871.1630015.266.6800014.663.81000015.162.11250014.654.41600015.344.9SPL27.183.4N0.954median 15.1median 63.7Delta1.211.83033.936.137.63228.229.429.431.541.127.928.722.123.1222421.223.521.528.120.337.718.442.617.351.516.757.81763.116.163.615.869.115.872.715.37015.870.214.9731571.514.770.914.772.51571.315.1761572.815.472.91561.716.34827.683.6157.3median 15.8median 69.11.912.5hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseXiaomi Pocophone F1Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
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
desligadodarklight 0.01 / 0.18 Watt
Ociosodarkmidlight 0.65 / 1.97 / 2.01 Watt
Carga midlight 4.29 / 9.05 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        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.
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 - 11/04/2019 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
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Análises e revisões de portáteis e celulares > Análises > Análises > Breve Análise do Smartphone Xiaomi Pocophone F1
Daniel Schmidt, 2018-10- 3 (Update: 2018-10-10)
Alex Alderson
Editor of the original article: Alex Alderson - News Editor - @aldersonaj