Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarBreve Análise do Smartphone Xiaomi Redmi 8A – Bateria grande, preço pequeno
Comparison devices
Rating | ratingversion | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 74.5 % | 7 | 12/2019 | Xiaomi Redmi 8A SD 439, Adreno 505 | 188 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 6.22" | 1520x720 | |
| 82.6 % | 6 | 08/2019 | Xiaomi Redmi 7A SD 439, Adreno 505 | 165 g | 16 GB eMMC Flash | 5.45" | 1440x720 | |
| 72.8 % | 7 | 06/2019 | Huawei Y5 2019 Helio A22 MT6761, PowerVR GE8300 | 146 g | 16 GB eMMC Flash | 5.71" | 1520x720 | |
| 74.9 % | 7 | 08/2019 | Samsung Galaxy A10 Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2 | 168 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 6.20" | 1520x720 | |
| 74.9 % | 7 | 10/2019 | Motorola Moto E6 Plus Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320 | 149.7 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 6.10" | 1560x720 |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Huawei Y5 2019 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 8A | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 7A | |
| Samsung Galaxy A10 | |
| Motorola Moto E6 Plus | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
| Motorola Moto E6 Plus | |
| Huawei Y5 2019 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 7A | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 8A | |
| Samsung Galaxy A10 | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 89 %
iluminação com acumulador: 441 cd/m²
Contraste: 1161:1 (Preto: 0.38 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.46 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 5.4 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
96.7% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.146
| Xiaomi Redmi 8A IPS, 1520x720, 6.22 | Xiaomi Redmi 7A IPS, 1440x720, 5.45 | Huawei Y5 2019 IPS, 1520x720, 5.71 | Samsung Galaxy A10 IPS, 1520x720, 6.20 | Motorola Moto E6 Plus IPS, 1560x720, 6.10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -18% | -11% | 1% | 9% | |
| Brightness middle | 441 | 533 21% | 630 43% | 451 2% | 453 3% |
| Brightness | 421 | 506 20% | 593 41% | 430 2% | 440 5% |
| Brightness Distribution | 89 | 88 -1% | 88 -1% | 90 1% | 86 -3% |
| Black Level * | 0.38 | 0.6 -58% | 0.66 -74% | 0.22 42% | 0.14 63% |
| Contrast | 1161 | 888 -24% | 955 -18% | 2050 77% | 3236 179% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.46 | 5.6 -26% | 5.79 -30% | 5.44 -22% | 7.2 -61% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 8.01 | 11.4 -42% | 9.54 -19% | 11.94 -49% | 12.7 -59% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 5.4 | 7.4 -37% | 7 -30% | 7.8 -44% | 8.4 -56% |
| Gamma | 2.146 103% | 2.212 99% | 2.176 101% | 2.206 100% | 1.95 113% |
| CCT | 7901 82% | 7974 82% | 8420 77% | 9149 71% | 8296 78% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 595 Hz | ≤ 15 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 595 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 15 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 595 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 28 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 11 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 17 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 67 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (21.5 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 52 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 21 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 31 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 87 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms). | ||
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 351, n=173, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A10 (Chrome 76) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 7A (Chrome 76) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 439 (15.9 - 16.9, n=5) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 8A (Chrome 78) | |
| Huawei Y5 2019 (Chrome 74) | |
| Motorola Moto E6 Plus (Chrome 77) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A10 (Chrome 76) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 439 (25.3 - 27.1, n=6) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 7A (Chrome 76) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 8A (Chrome 78) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (14.9 - 445, n=157, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A10 (Chome 76) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 7A (Chome 76) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 439 (17.4 - 18.5, n=5) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 8A (Chrome 78) | |
| Huawei Y5 2019 (Chome 74) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (39 - 304, n=122, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A10 (Chrome 76) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 439 (32 - 38, n=6) | |
| Huawei Y5 2019 (Chrome 74) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 7A (Chrome 76) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 8A (Chrome 78) | |
| Motorola Moto E6 Plus (Chrome 77) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 89112, n=211, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A10 (Chrome 76) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 439 (4512 - 4958, n=6) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 7A (Chrome 76) | |
| Huawei Y5 2019 (Chrome 74) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 8A (Chrome 78) | |
| Motorola Moto E6 Plus (Chrome 77) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Motorola Moto E6 Plus (Chrome 77) | |
| Huawei Y5 2019 (Chrome 74) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 7A (Chrome 76) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 8A (Chrome 78) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 439 (9768 - 10143, n=6) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A10 (Chrome 76) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (388 - 9999, n=173, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Xiaomi Redmi 8A | Xiaomi Redmi 7A | Huawei Y5 2019 | Samsung Galaxy A10 | Motorola Moto E6 Plus | Average 32 GB eMMC Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -17% | -16% | -3% | -2% | -8% | 808% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 282 | 258 -9% | 272.1 -4% | 296.4 5% | 277.7 -2% | 242 ? -14% | 1505 ? 434% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 106.4 | 68.7 -35% | 45.2 -58% | 101.7 -4% | 106.1 0% | 100.5 ? -6% | 1112 ? 945% |
| Random Read 4KB | 73.1 | 57.8 -21% | 62.1 -15% | 73.4 0% | 61.7 -16% | 43.2 ? -41% | 247 ? 238% |
| Random Write 4KB | 15.8 | 9.6 -39% | 13.1 -17% | 13.3 -16% | 17.41 10% | 22.4 ? 42% | 271 ? 1615% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 84.9 ? | 85.2 ? 0% | 81.8 ? -4% | 78.8 ? -7% | 82.5 ? -3% | 71.8 ? -15% | |
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 61.7 ? | 64.6 ? 5% | 63.1 ? 2% | 65.3 ? 6% | 62.3 ? 1% | 52.9 ? -14% |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 31.5 °C / 89 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 32 °C / 90 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.3 °C / 79 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
Xiaomi Redmi 8A audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 69.1% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 69.1% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 69.1% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (118% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 85% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 6% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 95% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 2% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Xiaomi Redmi 7A audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 67.5% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 67.5% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 67.5% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (126.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 95% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 99% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 0% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0 / 0.1 Watt |
| Ocioso |  0.9 / 1.8 / 2.4 Watt |
| Carga |
4.3 / 6 Watt |
    
| |
| Xiaomi Redmi 8A 5000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi 7A 4000 mAh | Huawei Y5 2019 3020 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A10 3400 mAh | Motorola Moto E6 Plus 3000 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 439 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 10% | 1% | 5% | 24% | 1% | -3% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.9 | 0.8 11% | 1.2 -33% | 0.7 22% | 0.57 37% | 0.82 ? 9% | 0.897 ? -0% |
| Idle Average * | 1.8 | 1.6 11% | 1.9 -6% | 1.6 11% | 1.69 6% | 2.21 ? -23% | 1.452 ? 19% |
| Idle Maximum * | 2.4 | 2.2 8% | 2.4 -0% | 2 17% | 1.72 28% | 2.49 ? -4% | 1.629 ? 32% |
| Load Average * | 4.3 | 3.9 9% | 3.3 23% | 5.4 -26% | 3 30% | 3.78 ? 12% | 5.55 ? -29% |
| Load Maximum * | 6 | 5.4 10% | 4.6 23% | 6 -0% | 4.88 19% | 5.24 ? 13% | 8.31 ? -39% |
* ... smaller is better
| Xiaomi Redmi 8A 5000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi 7A 4000 mAh | Huawei Y5 2019 3020 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A10 3400 mAh | Motorola Moto E6 Plus 3000 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -23% | -36% | -29% | -28% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1903 | 1543 -19% | 1256 -34% | 1489 -22% | |
| H.264 | 1193 | 902 -24% | 732 -39% | 802 -33% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 1145 | 853 -26% | 709 -38% | 753 -34% | 825 -28% |
| Load | 367 | 286 -22% | 249 -32% | 276 -25% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto – Recomendável, mas não é perfeito
O Redmi 8A novamente oferece muito pelo seu preço acessível: Bateria com duração muito, muito longa, um alto-falante decente, um chassi moderno e estável, patches de segurança atualizados e muito armazenamento. Certamente, você precisará de seu próprio adaptador de força para a função de carregamento rápido anunciado, e o truque para implantar o MIUI 11, mas ainda baseá-lo apenas no Android 9, é bastante audacioso.
As velocidades de localização e Wi-Fi estão no nível da classe, assim como o desempenho em si. Em relação à câmera, existem modelos muito piores por um preço semelhante, para que você possa puxar o gatilho da compra com tranquilidade aqui.
Um smartphone barato com uma ótima configuração: O Xiaomi Redmi 8A é uma recomendação obvia.
Por pouco menos de 120 euros (~US$ 133), dificilmente você pode obter mais pelo dinheiro no momento, mas o Redmi 7A é o dispositivo mais impressionante a um preço ainda mais baixo e com apenas uma pequena quantidade de deficiências. Mas aqueles que procuram uma tela maior, uma duração de bateria ainda mais longa e que preferem um design mais moderno, podem investir os quase 30 Euros (~US$ 33) do preço premium com a consciência limpa.
Xiaomi Redmi 8A
-
12/03/2019 v7
Florian Schmitt