Notebookcheck

Breve Análise do Smartphone Xiaomi Redmi Note 5

Florian Wimmer, 👁 Florian Schmitt, Tanja Hinum (traduzido por Ricardo Soto), 07/03/2018

Vermelho e acessível. O Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 não só convence com o seu preço acessível, mas também com a sua câmara dupla, a sua carcaça de metal e o seu SoC capaz. Descubra nesta análise se o desempenho do Redmi Note 5 é tão impressionante quanto seu preço.

Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 (Redmi Serie)
Placa gráfica
Qualcomm Adreno 509
Memória
3072 MB 
Pantalha
5.99 polegadas 2:1, 2160 x 1080 pixel 403 PPI, Tela táctil capacitiva, IPS, Brilhante: sim
Disco rígido
32 GB eMMC Flash, 32 GB 
, 24 GB livre
Conexões
1 USB 2.0, 1 Infrared, Conexões Audio: Conector para fones de 3,5 mm, Card Reader: microSD de até 256 GB, 1 Leitor de Impressões Digitais, Brightness Sensor, Sensores: Acelerômtro, Giroscópio, Sensor de proximidade, Bússola, sensor de digitais
Funcionamento em rede
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM (850/​900/​1800/​1900), UMTS (850/​900/​1900/​2100), LTE (Band 1/3/7/8/20/38/40), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Tamanho
altura x largura x profundidade (em mm): 8.05 x 158.5 x 75.45
Bateria
15.2 Wh, 4000 mAh Lítio-Polímero
Sistema Operativo
Android 8.1 Oreo
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix Câmera principal: 12 MP, f/1.9, 1.12µm Phase detection AF (dual-pixel), flash dual LED, vídeos am até 1080p a 30 FPS. Câmera secundária: 5 MP, f/2.0, 1.25µm, depth of field (DOF)
Secondary Camera: 13 MPix 13 MP, f/2.0, 1.12µm, LED flash, vídeos em até 1080p a 30 FPS
Características adicionais
Alto falantes: Alto-falante mono no lado inferior do dispositivo, Teclado: Teclado virtual, Cabo USB Type-A para Micro USB, Carregador rápido, Ferramenta SIM, capa protetora, MIUI 9, MI remote, Cleaner, Mi Video, 24 Meses Garantia, LTE: 600 Mbps (Download); 150 Mbps (Upload). SAR values: 1.03 W/kg (head); 0.79 W/kg (body). FM radio., fanless
peso
180 g, Suprimento de energia: 61 g
Preço
239 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5

Size Comparison

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
Adreno 508, 630, 64 GB eMMC Flash
310 MBit/s ∼100% +16%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
Adreno 509, 636, 32 GB eMMC Flash
268 MBit/s ∼86%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=297)
205 MBit/s ∼66% -24%
Maze Alpha X
Mali-T880 MP2, Helio P25, 64 GB eMMC Flash
82.8 MBit/s ∼27% -69%
Huawei Y7 2018
Adreno 505, 430, 16 GB eMMC Flash
55 MBit/s ∼18% -79%
Huawei Honor 7X
Mali-T830 MP2, Kirin 659, 32 GB eMMC Flash
46.4 MBit/s ∼15% -83%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
Adreno 508, 630, 64 GB eMMC Flash
311 MBit/s ∼100% +14%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
Adreno 509, 636, 32 GB eMMC Flash
273 MBit/s ∼88%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=297)
200 MBit/s ∼64% -27%
Maze Alpha X
Mali-T880 MP2, Helio P25, 64 GB eMMC Flash
95.1 MBit/s ∼31% -65%
Huawei Y7 2018
Adreno 505, 430, 16 GB eMMC Flash
56.9 MBit/s ∼18% -79%
Huawei Honor 7X
Mali-T830 MP2, Kirin 659, 32 GB eMMC Flash
47 MBit/s ∼15% -83%
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 – Overview
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 – Overview
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 – Wooded area
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 – Wooded area
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 – Bridge
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 – Bridge
GPS test: Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 - Overview
GPS test: Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 - Overview
GPS test: Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 – Wooded area
GPS test: Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 – Wooded area
GPS test: Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 – Bridge
GPS test: Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 – Bridge

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
Photograph of our test chart
Photograph of our test chart
Our test chart in detail
Our test chart in detail
ColorChecker: The reference color is displayed in the lower half of each area of color
ColorChecker: The reference color is displayed in the lower half of each area of color
541
cd/m²
512
cd/m²
547
cd/m²
537
cd/m²
518
cd/m²
528
cd/m²
539
cd/m²
522
cd/m²
546
cd/m²
Distribuição do brilho
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Máximo: 547 cd/m² Médio: 532.2 cd/m² Minimum: 1.14 cd/m²
iluminação: 94 %
iluminação com acumulador: 448 cd/m²
Contraste: 2252:1 (Preto: 0.23 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.66 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.3
ΔE Greyscale 6.8 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
99.7% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.269
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
IPS, 2160x1080, 5.99
Maze Alpha X
IPS, 2160x1080, 6
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
IPS, 2160x1080, 5.9
Huawei Honor 7X
IPS, 2160x1080, 5.93
Huawei Y7 2018
IPS, 1440x720, 5.99
Screen
-70%
1%
5%
-9%
Brightness middle
518
497
-4%
761
47%
533.2
3%
393
-24%
Brightness
532
478
-10%
723
36%
511
-4%
365
-31%
Brightness Distribution
94
87
-7%
90
-4%
88
-6%
85
-10%
Black Level *
0.23
0.6
-161%
0.69
-200%
0.35
-52%
0.29
-26%
Contrast
2252
828
-63%
1103
-51%
1523
-32%
1355
-40%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
5.66
11.6
-105%
2.4
58%
2.83
50%
5.28
7%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
10.32
22.1
-114%
5.2
50%
6.72
35%
9
13%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
6.8
13.5
-99%
1.8
74%
3.7
46%
4.2
38%
Gamma
2.269 97%
2.93 75%
2.21 100%
1.9 116%
2.6 85%
CCT
8564 76%
9955 65%
6312 103%
6918 94%
7086 92%

* ... 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 2358 Hz ≤ 20 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 2358 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 2358 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8629 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) 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
26 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 9 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 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 46 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (25.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
50 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 23 ms rise
↘ 27 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. » 83 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (41 ms).
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
92672 Points ∼93%
Maze Alpha X
63989 Points ∼64% -31%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
71635 Points ∼72% -23%
Huawei Honor 7X
62810 Points ∼63% -32%
Huawei Y7 2018
45687 Points ∼46% -51%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (92672 - 125213, n=7)
99559 Points ∼100% +7%
Average of class Smartphone (23275 - 250848, n=382)
74754 Points ∼75% -19%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
115654 Points ∼96%
Maze Alpha X
73822 Points ∼61% -36%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
90347 Points ∼75% -22%
Huawei Honor 7X
81992 Points ∼68% -29%
Huawei Y7 2018
59421 Points ∼49% -49%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (115565 - 138661, n=6)
120207 Points ∼100% +4%
Average of class Smartphone (17073 - 348178, n=160)
115872 Points ∼96% 0%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
5642 Points ∼100%
Maze Alpha X
3795 Points ∼67% -33%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
4875 Points ∼86% -14%
Huawei Honor 7X
4859 Points ∼86% -14%
Huawei Y7 2018
3874 Points ∼69% -31%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (5611 - 6068, n=6)
4778 Points ∼85% -15%
Average of class Smartphone (2829 - 9868, n=243)
4492 Points ∼80% -20%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Maze Alpha X
4562 Points ∼71%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
5712 Points ∼89%
Huawei Honor 7X
6213 Points ∼97%
Huawei Y7 2018
4918 Points ∼76%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (6040 - 6999, n=5)
6430 Points ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone (3681 - 13211, n=410)
4890 Points ∼76%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Maze Alpha X
924 Points ∼88%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
925 Points ∼88%
Huawei Honor 7X
724 Points ∼69%
Huawei Y7 2018
673 Points ∼64%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (1018 - 1088, n=5)
1051 Points ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1731, n=485)
689 Points ∼66%
Graphics (sort by value)
Maze Alpha X
1122 Points ∼67%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
1523 Points ∼91%
Huawei Honor 7X
845 Points ∼50%
Huawei Y7 2018
739 Points ∼44%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (1597 - 1625, n=5)
1607 Points ∼96%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 15969, n=485)
1675 Points ∼100%
Memory (sort by value)
Maze Alpha X
1294 Points ∼59%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
1213 Points ∼55%
Huawei Honor 7X
1788 Points ∼82%
Huawei Y7 2018
1144 Points ∼52%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (1935 - 2492, n=5)
2193 Points ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 6283, n=485)
1205 Points ∼55%
System (sort by value)
Maze Alpha X
3064 Points ∼66%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
3249 Points ∼70%
Huawei Honor 7X
2899 Points ∼63%
Huawei Y7 2018
1906 Points ∼41%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (4320 - 5348, n=5)
4632 Points ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 12202, n=485)
2435 Points ∼53%
Overall (sort by value)
Maze Alpha X
1424 Points ∼70%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
1535 Points ∼76%
Huawei Honor 7X
1334 Points ∼66%
Huawei Y7 2018
1020 Points ∼50%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (1933 - 2156, n=5)
2033 Points ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone (150 - 6097, n=489)
1217 Points ∼60%
Geekbench 4.1/4.2
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
4578 Points ∼100%
Maze Alpha X
2726 Points ∼60% -40%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
3763 Points ∼82% -18%
Huawei Honor 7X
2772 Points ∼61% -39%
Huawei Y7 2018
2133 Points ∼47% -53%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (4309 - 5041, n=6)
4581 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (836 - 21070, n=184)
4424 Points ∼97% -3%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
4943 Points ∼98%
Maze Alpha X
3795 Points ∼75% -23%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
4011 Points ∼80% -19%
Huawei Honor 7X
3342 Points ∼66% -32%
Huawei Y7 2018
2889 Points ∼57% -42%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (4939 - 5426, n=6)
5028 Points ∼100% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (883 - 11598, n=233)
4232 Points ∼84% -14%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
1339 Points ∼98%
Maze Alpha X
833 Points ∼61% -38%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
822 Points ∼60% -39%
Huawei Honor 7X
869 Points ∼64% -35%
Huawei Y7 2018
676 Points ∼50% -50%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (1323 - 1506, n=6)
1361 Points ∼100% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (394 - 4824, n=234)
1250 Points ∼92% -7%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
2346 Points ∼98%
Maze Alpha X
1700 Points ∼71% -28%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
1822 Points ∼76% -22%
Huawei Honor 7X
1553 Points ∼65% -34%
Huawei Y7 2018
1258 Points ∼53% -46%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (2327 - 2634, n=6)
2395 Points ∼100% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (549 - 4183, n=340)
1630 Points ∼68% -31%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
797 Points ∼68%
Maze Alpha X
598 Points ∼51% -25%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
721 Points ∼61% -10%
Huawei Honor 7X
338 Points ∼29% -58%
Huawei Y7 2018
255 Points ∼22% -68%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (797 - 816, n=6)
812 Points ∼69% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (69 - 5241, n=340)
1175 Points ∼100% +47%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
934 Points ∼83%
Maze Alpha X
699 Points ∼62% -25%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
833 Points ∼74% -11%
Huawei Honor 7X
409 Points ∼36% -56%
Huawei Y7 2018
310 Points ∼28% -67%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (934 - 962, n=6)
952 Points ∼85% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (86 - 4734, n=348)
1121 Points ∼100% +20%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
2379 Points ∼100%
Maze Alpha X
1725 Points ∼73% -27%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
1802 Points ∼76% -24%
Huawei Honor 7X
1656 Points ∼70% -30%
Huawei Y7 2018
1280 Points ∼54% -46%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (1349 - 2626, n=6)
2230 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (532 - 4150, n=371)
1517 Points ∼64% -36%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
1313 Points ∼82%
Maze Alpha X
928 Points ∼58% -29%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
1258 Points ∼79% -4%
Huawei Honor 7X
528 Points ∼33% -60%
Huawei Y7 2018
524 Points ∼33% -60%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (1313 - 1338, n=6)
1331 Points ∼84% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (55 - 8312, n=371)
1592 Points ∼100% +21%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
1458 Points ∼99%
Maze Alpha X
1034 Points ∼70% -29%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
1348 Points ∼91% -8%
Huawei Honor 7X
622 Points ∼42% -57%
Huawei Y7 2018
603 Points ∼41% -59%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (1458 - 1493, n=6)
1477 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (69 - 6378, n=379)
1354 Points ∼92% -7%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
17471 Points ∼100%
Maze Alpha X
15189 Points ∼87% -13%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
12845 Points ∼74% -26%
Huawei Honor 7X
13372 Points ∼77% -23%
Huawei Y7 2018
9153 Points ∼52% -48%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (16747 - 19365, n=6)
17443 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (3958 - 36794, n=525)
12683 Points ∼73% -27%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
20909 Points ∼100%
Maze Alpha X
13708 Points ∼66% -34%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
18449 Points ∼88% -12%
Huawei Honor 7X
10332 Points ∼49% -51%
Huawei Y7 2018
9713 Points ∼46% -54%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (20722 - 20909, n=6)
20841 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (2465 - 162695, n=525)
17522 Points ∼84% -16%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
20033 Points ∼100%
Maze Alpha X
14012 Points ∼70% -30%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
16818 Points ∼84% -16%
Huawei Honor 7X
10882 Points ∼54% -46%
Huawei Y7 2018
9583 Points ∼48% -52%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (19743 - 20404, n=6)
19983 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (2915 - 77599, n=526)
14738 Points ∼74% -26%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
35 fps ∼98%
Maze Alpha X
24 fps ∼67% -31%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
30 fps ∼84% -14%
Huawei Honor 7X
19 fps ∼53% -46%
Huawei Y7 2018
16 fps ∼45% -54%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (35 - 36, n=6)
35.8 fps ∼100% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 251, n=550)
30.2 fps ∼84% -14%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
35 fps ∼100%
Maze Alpha X
21 fps ∼60% -40%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
28 fps ∼80% -20%
Huawei Honor 7X
18 fps ∼51% -49%
Huawei Y7 2018
27 fps ∼77% -23%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (33 - 35, n=6)
34.2 fps ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (6.9 - 120, n=553)
24.4 fps ∼70% -30%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
16 fps ∼99%
Maze Alpha X
11 fps ∼68% -31%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
14 fps ∼86% -12%
Huawei Honor 7X
8 fps ∼49% -50%
Huawei Y7 2018
7.1 fps ∼44% -56%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (16 - 16, n=6)
16 fps ∼99% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 132, n=472)
16.2 fps ∼100% +1%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
15 fps ∼97%
Maze Alpha X
9.5 fps ∼61% -37%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
13 fps ∼84% -13%
Huawei Honor 7X
7.9 fps ∼51% -47%
Huawei Y7 2018
14 fps ∼90% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (14 - 15, n=6)
14.8 fps ∼95% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 115, n=475)
15.5 fps ∼100% +3%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
9.8 fps ∼71%
Maze Alpha X
3.7 fps ∼27% -62%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
9.8 fps ∼71% 0%
Huawei Honor 7X
4.7 fps ∼34% -52%
Huawei Y7 2018
4.6 fps ∼33% -53%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (9.8 - 10, n=6)
9.97 fps ∼72% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (1.3 - 88, n=335)
13.8 fps ∼100% +41%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
10 fps ∼74%
Maze Alpha X
6 fps ∼44% -40%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
9.4 fps ∼70% -6%
Huawei Honor 7X
4.5 fps ∼33% -55%
Huawei Y7 2018
10 fps ∼74% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (9.1 - 10, n=6)
9.72 fps ∼72% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (2.6 - 110, n=338)
13.5 fps ∼100% +35%
GFXBench
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
6.3 fps ∼65%
Maze Alpha X
4.1 fps ∼43% -35%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
5.6 fps ∼58% -11%
Huawei Honor 7X
2.9 fps ∼30% -54%
Huawei Y7 2018
2.6 fps ∼27% -59%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (6.3 - 6.3, n=6)
6.3 fps ∼65% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (0.72 - 54, n=267)
9.62 fps ∼100% +53%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
6 fps ∼69%
Maze Alpha X
3.6 fps ∼41% -40%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
5.3 fps ∼61% -12%
Huawei Honor 7X
2.9 fps ∼33% -52%
Huawei Y7 2018
5.4 fps ∼62% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (5.7 - 6, n=6)
5.95 fps ∼69% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (1.1 - 58, n=270)
8.68 fps ∼100% +45%

Legend

 
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 Qualcomm Snapdragon 636, Qualcomm Adreno 509, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
Maze Alpha X Mediatek Helio P25, ARM Mali-T880 MP2, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
Motorola Moto G6 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Qualcomm Adreno 508, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
Huawei Honor 7X HiSilicon Kirin 659, ARM Mali-T830 MP2, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
Huawei Y7 2018 Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Qualcomm Adreno 505, 16 GB eMMC Flash
JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 88869, n=408)
254 Points ∼100% +473%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (44.2 - 51.5, n=6)
45.7 Points ∼18% +3%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 (Chrome 67)
44.322 Points ∼17%
Huawei Honor 7X (Chrome 63.0.3239.111)
31.299 Points ∼12% -29%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus (Chrome 66)
27.971 Points ∼11% -37%
Maze Alpha X (Chrome Version 64)
27.463 Points ∼11% -38%
Huawei Y7 2018 (Chrome 66)
17.86 Points ∼7% -60%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (8273 - 9746, n=6)
8725 Points ∼100% +4%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 (Chrome 67)
8422 Points ∼97%
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 43280, n=545)
5462 Points ∼63% -35%
Huawei Honor 7X (Chrome 63.0.3239.111)
5302 Points ∼61% -37%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus (Chrome 66)
5011 Points ∼57% -41%
Maze Alpha X (Chrome Version 64)
4990 Points ∼57% -41%
Huawei Y7 2018 (Chrome 66)
3363 Points ∼39% -60%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Huawei Y7 2018 (Chrome 66)
13541 ms * ∼100% -186%
Average of class Smartphone (603 - 59466, n=565)
11590 ms * ∼86% -145%
Maze Alpha X (Chrome Version 64)
10244 ms * ∼76% -116%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus (Chrome 66)
9796.9 ms * ∼72% -107%
Huawei Honor 7X (Chrome 63.0.3239.111)
8684.3 ms * ∼64% -83%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 (Chrome 67)
4740 ms * ∼35%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (4105 - 4820, n=6)
4624 ms * ∼34% +2%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 (Chrome 67)
158 Points ∼100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (148 - 164, n=5)
155 Points ∼98% -2%
Huawei Honor 7X (Chrome 63.0.3239.111)
111 Points ∼70% -30%
Motorola Moto G6 Plus (Chrome 66)
108 Points ∼68% -32%
Average of class Smartphone (27 - 362, n=275)
108 Points ∼68% -32%
Huawei Y7 2018 (Chrome 66)
82 Points ∼52% -48%

* ... smaller is better

Xiaomi Redmi Note 5Maze Alpha XMotorola Moto G6 PlusHuawei Honor 7XHuawei Y7 2018Average 32 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
8%
64%
-0%
-19%
-17%
-23%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
62.4
73.99 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
19%
62.13 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
0%
30.55
-51%
61.5
-1%
47.1 (3.4 - 87.1, n=111)
-25%
45.2 (3.4 - 87.1, n=313)
-28%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
83.4
80.96 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-3%
83.65 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
0%
52.65
-37%
85
2%
66.3 (8.2 - 96.5, n=111)
-21%
63.5 (8.2 - 96.5, n=313)
-24%
Random Write 4KB
16.3
11.61
-29%
62.76
285%
20.24
24%
9.5
-42%
18.6 (0.75 - 77.3, n=148)
14%
15.4 (0.14 - 164, n=594)
-6%
Random Read 4KB
48.9
70.27
44%
58.39
19%
81.4
66%
38.8
-21%
36.2 (3.59 - 117, n=148)
-26%
37.4 (1.59 - 173, n=594)
-24%
Sequential Write 256KB
121.6
162.16
33%
216.09
78%
127.87
5%
71.5
-41%
94.4 (14.8 - 189, n=148)
-22%
78.2 (2.99 - 246, n=594)
-36%
Sequential Read 256KB
287.6
247.44
-14%
286.64
0%
265.31
-8%
256
-11%
229 (25.8 - 440, n=148)
-20%
226 (12.1 - 895, n=594)
-21%
Arena of Valor
 ConfiguraçõesValor
 min31 fps
 high HD31 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Shadow Fight 3
 ConfiguraçõesValor
 high58 fps
 minimal59 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
PUBG Mobile
 ConfiguraçõesValor
 Smooth25 fps
 Balanced25 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Carga Máxima
 38.4 °C35.3 °C35.7 °C 
 38.4 °C35.5 °C37.5 °C 
 37.8 °C34.9 °C35.5 °C 
Máximo: 38.4 °C
Médio: 36.6 °C
34.5 °C36.2 °C36.8 °C
34.5 °C36.4 °C36.8 °C
34.5 °C35.8 °C36.6 °C
Máximo: 36.8 °C
Médio: 35.8 °C
alimentação elétrica  37.8 °C | Temperatura do quarto 21.9 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 36.6 °C / 98 F, compared to the average of 33.2 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 38.4 °C / 101 F, compared to the average of 35.8 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the bottom side is 36.8 °C / 98 F, compared to the average of 34.3 °C / 94 F, ranging from 22 to 326 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.3 °C / 85 F, compared to the device average of 33.2 °C / 92 F.
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2042.6412538.433.13134.225.94037.324.35030306326.628.38023.220.810021.220.81252120.616016.330.520016.643.325015.84631513.548.840012.255.95001260.563011.76480010.565.210009.665.312509.564.81600964.120008.56525008.566.731508.36740008.26750008.165.863008.164.780008.161.1100008.255125008.350.2160008.234SPL60.165.451.721.959.976.9N13.419.17.10.31238.5median 9.5median 61.1Delta2.810.836.23633.633.231.429.931.432.331.431.530.831.428.329.728.128.827.427.92627.725.731.624.939.12445.323.949.823.75422.557.322.458.121.959.721.66821.371.421.168.921.170.320.871.620.878.720.776.320.866.320.764.720.570.520.665.520.753.533.683.8249.9median 21.6median 59.72.211.9hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseXiaomi Redmi Note 5Huawei Honor 7X
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (76.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 19% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 69% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 50% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 42% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Huawei Honor 7X audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (78.73 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.1% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 11.5% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (11.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (34.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 93% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 5% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 95% of all tested devices were better, 2% similar, 3% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Consumo de energia
desligadodarklight 0.06 / 0.2 Watt
Ociosodarkmidlight 1 / 2.6 / 2.9 Watt
Carga midlight 5 / 8.2 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
4000 mAh
Maze Alpha X
3900 mAh
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
3200 mAh
Huawei Honor 7X
3340 mAh
Huawei Y7 2018
3000 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
21%
38%
12%
19%
4%
25%
Idle Minimum *
1
0.9
10%
0.5
50%
1.02
-2%
0.9
10%
1.076 (0.65 - 1.75, n=7)
-8%
0.883 (0.2 - 3.4, n=630)
12%
Idle Average *
2.6
2.14
18%
1.78
32%
2.46
5%
1.9
27%
2.52 (1.5 - 4.48, n=7)
3%
1.723 (0.6 - 6.2, n=629)
34%
Idle Maximum *
2.9
2.18
25%
1.81
38%
2.51
13%
2.3
21%
2.78 (2.2 - 4.5, n=7)
4%
1.998 (0.74 - 6.6, n=630)
31%
Load Average *
5
3.96
21%
3.3
34%
4.16
17%
4.7
6%
4.53 (3.65 - 7.92, n=7)
9%
4.03 (0.8 - 10.8, n=624)
19%
Load Maximum *
8.2
5.81
29%
5.14
37%
5.87
28%
5.7
30%
7.36 (5.1 - 13.6, n=7)
10%
5.73 (1.2 - 14.2, n=624)
30%

* ... smaller is better

Tempo de Execução da Bateria
Ocioso (sem WLAN, min brilho)
30h 24min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
14h 32min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
15h 02min
Carga (máximo brilho)
4h 18min
Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
4000 mAh
Maze Alpha X
3900 mAh
Motorola Moto G6 Plus
3200 mAh
Huawei Honor 7X
3340 mAh
Huawei Y7 2018
3000 mAh
Battery Runtime
-16%
-0%
-29%
-21%
Reader / Idle
1824
1624
-11%
1846
1%
1111
-39%
1305
-28%
H.264
902
542
-40%
687
-24%
WiFi v1.3
872
603
-31%
702
-19%
664
-24%
624
-28%
Load
258
240
-7%
404
57%
199
-23%
245
-5%

Pro

+ Poder de CPU e GPU abundante pelo preço
+ Boa qualidade das chamadas
+ Longa duração da bateria
+ Tela brilhante e de alto contraste
+ Bluetooth 5.0 e Wi-Fi 802.11 ac
+ Temperaturas razoáveis da superfície sob uso intenso
+ Versão atual do Android
+ Sem afogamentos

Contra

- Consumo de energia relativamente alto
- Forte tonalidade azul na tela
- O microfone é frequentemente muito sensível
- O sistema operacional às vezes é restritivo para aplicativos
The Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 in review. Test device courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de.
The Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 in review. Test device courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de.

O Redmi Note 5 é o epítome da ética da Xiaomi de lançar dispositivos acessíveis mas de alto desempenho e demonstra por que muitos anseiam por um lançamento europeu de seus dispositivos. O Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 é um smartphone acessível que tem muita potência, boa duração de bateria, Wi-Fi 802.11 ac rápido e uma tela brilhante e de alto contraste por menos de €240 (~$277). O Note 5 também tem um bom alto-falante, enquanto a qualidade das chamadas é decente e o suporte para Quick Charge é útil. O moderno SoC proporciona ao Note 5 velocidades LTE relativamente rápidas, Bluetooth 5.0 e deve deixa-lo preparado para o futuro previsível.

No entanto, existem algumas falhas. A temperatura de cor e uma tonalidade azul da tela não são boas, e também não é o consumo de energia relativamente alto, apesar da impressionante duração da bateria. O MIUI também emprega um gerenciamento agressivo de aplicativos em seu detrimento. Isso pode levar a problemas com aplicativos que precisam ser executados em segundo plano, mas ajuda a reduzir o consumo de energia e prolongar a duração da bateria. A câmera é a única área em que o Note 5 é claramente um dispositivo de gama média, mas as fotos são adequadas em geral. As temperaturas da superfície também são boas, embora possam ser melhores sob uso intenso.

O Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 é ótimo custo-benefício. O dispositivo tem excelente desempenho pelo seu preço e oferece uma tela brilhante, entre outros destaques.

O Note 5 oferece um desempenho excelente pelo seu preço e, muitas vezes, supera até os concorrentes mais caros. O Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 recebe uma recomendação nossa apenas por esse motivo, apesar de suas pequenas desvantagens.

Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 - 06/25/2018 v6
Florian Wimmer

Acabamento
83%
Teclado
65 / 75 → 87%
Mouse
91%
Conectividade
44 / 60 → 74%
Peso
90%
Bateria
97%
Pantalha
85%
Desempenho do jogos
45 / 63 → 71%
Desempenho da aplicação
56 / 70 → 80%
Temperatura
91%
Ruído
100%
Camera
75%
Médio
77%
86%
Smartphone - Médio equilibrado

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Análises e revisões de portáteis e celulares > Análises > Análises > Breve Análise do Smartphone Xiaomi Redmi Note 5
Florian Wimmer, 2018-07- 3 (Update: 2018-07-11)