Breve Análise do Google Pixel 4: não está mais na vanguarda dos smartphones
Test group
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
85.7 % v7 (old) | 12/2019 | Google Pixel 4 SD 855, Adreno 640 | 162 g | 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 5.70" | 2280x1080 | |
86.5 % v7 (old) | 09/2019 | Apple iPhone 11 A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU | 194 g | 64 GB SSD | 6.10" | 1792x828 | |
85.1 % v7 (old) | 03/2019 | Samsung Galaxy S10e Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12 | 150 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 5.80" | 2280x1080 | |
86.2 % v7 (old) | 03/2019 | Xiaomi Mi 9 SD 855, Adreno 640 | 173 g | 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.39" | 2340x1080 | |
85.8 % v7 (old) | 10/2019 | OnePlus 7T SD 855+, Adreno 640 | 190 g | 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.55" | 2400x1080 | |
88.5 % v7 (old) | 03/2019 | Huawei P30 Pro Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10 | 192 g | 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.47" | 2340x1080 | |
83.9 % v7 (old) | 11/2018 | Google Pixel 3 SD 845, Adreno 630 | 148 g | 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 5.50" | 2160x1080 |
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
|
iluminação: 94 %
iluminação com acumulador: 554 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 0.8 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.93
ΔE Greyscale 1.3 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
95.5% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.22
Google Pixel 4 OLED, 2280x1080, 5.7" | Apple iPhone 11 IPS, 1792x828, 6.1" | Samsung Galaxy S10e AMOLED, 2280x1080, 5.8" | Xiaomi Mi 9 AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | OnePlus 7T AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.6" | Huawei P30 Pro OLED, 2340x1080, 6.5" | Google Pixel 3 OLED, 2160x1080, 5.5" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | -2% | -64% | -10% | -127% | -57% | -34% | |
Brightness middle | 554 | 679 23% | 426 -23% | 593 7% | 693 25% | 597 8% | 393 -29% |
Brightness | 550 | 671 22% | 427 -22% | 587 7% | 703 28% | 608 11% | 398 -28% |
Brightness Distribution | 94 | 93 -1% | 96 2% | 94 0% | 96 2% | 89 -5% | 91 -3% |
Black Level * | 0.68 | ||||||
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 0.8 | 0.8 -0% | 2.14 -168% | 0.9 -13% | 3.42 -328% | 2.2 -175% | 1.4 -75% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 1.4 | 2.4 -71% | 3.29 -135% | 2 -43% | 6.12 -337% | 3.6 -157% | 2.5 -79% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1.3 | 1.1 15% | 1.8 -38% | 1.5 -15% | 3.3 -154% | 1.6 -23% | 1.2 8% |
Gamma | 2.22 99% | 2.24 98% | 2.111 104% | 2.27 97% | 2.265 97% | 2.23 99% | 2.19 100% |
CCT | 6213 105% | 6610 98% | 6329 103% | 6548 99% | 6799 96% | 6268 104% | 6597 99% |
Contrast | 999 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 367.6 Hz | ||
The display backlight flickers at 367.6 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 367.6 Hz is relatively high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. However, there are reports that some users are still sensitive to PWM at 500 Hz and above, so be aware. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8774 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. |
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
2.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 1.2 ms rise | |
↘ 1.2 ms fall | ||
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 9 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
2.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 1.2 ms rise | |
↘ 1.2 ms fall | ||
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 8 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). |
PCMark for Android | |
Work performance score (sort by value) | |
Google Pixel 4 | |
Samsung Galaxy S10e | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
OnePlus 7T | |
Huawei P30 Pro | |
Google Pixel 3 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (10330 - 14439, n=19) | |
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
Google Pixel 4 | |
Samsung Galaxy S10e | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
OnePlus 7T | |
Huawei P30 Pro | |
Google Pixel 3 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (8342 - 11440, n=19) |
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
Google Pixel 4 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Huawei P30 Pro | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (376698 - 451559, n=8) |
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
Google Pixel 4 | |
Apple iPhone 11 | |
Samsung Galaxy S10e | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
OnePlus 7T | |
Huawei P30 Pro | |
Google Pixel 3 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (217967 - 398720, n=16) |
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=162, last 2 years) | |
OnePlus 7T (Chrome 76) | |
Huawei P30 Pro (Chrome 73) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (45.5 - 67, n=16) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73) | |
Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
OnePlus 7T (Chrome 76) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (84.4 - 120, n=17) | |
Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78) | |
Google Pixel 3 (Chrome 70) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=148, last 2 years) | |
OnePlus 7T (Chome 76) | |
Huawei P30 Pro (Chrome 73) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (42.5 - 67.9, n=15) | |
Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78) |
WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=82, last 2 years) | |
Huawei P30 Pro (Chrome 73) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (90 - 129, n=20) | |
OnePlus 7T (Chrome 76) | |
Google Pixel 3 (Chrome 70) | |
Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=204, last 2 years) | |
OnePlus 7T (Chrome 76) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (17011 - 33918, n=21) | |
Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78) | |
Huawei P30 Pro (Chrome 73) | |
Samsung Galaxy S10e (Chrome 73) | |
Google Pixel 3 (Chrome 70) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
Google Pixel 3 (Chrome 70) | |
Samsung Galaxy S10e (Chrome 73) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (1852 - 2611, n=19) | |
Google Pixel 4 (Chrome 78) | |
OnePlus 7T (Chrome 76) | |
Huawei P30 Pro (Chrome 73) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=161, last 2 years) | |
Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) |
* ... smaller is better
Google Pixel 4 | Samsung Galaxy S10e | Xiaomi Mi 9 | OnePlus 7T | Huawei P30 Pro | Google Pixel 3 | Average 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | -18% | 24% | 16% | 21% | 1% | -9% | 224% | |
Sequential Read 256KB | 655 | 792 21% | 666 2% | 1406 115% | 849 30% | 766 17% | 696 ? 6% | 1834 ? 180% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 247.7 | 194.1 -22% | 388.3 57% | 218.4 -12% | 250.8 1% | 181.8 -27% | 224 ? -10% | 1426 ? 476% |
Random Read 4KB | 122.4 | 136.9 12% | 149.4 22% | 170.1 39% | 174.4 42% | 149.8 22% | 137.2 ? 12% | 278 ? 127% |
Random Write 4KB | 146.6 | 24.1 -84% | 165.3 13% | 29.9 -80% | 159.2 9% | 133.8 -9% | 84.7 ? -42% | 310 ? 111% |
PUBG Mobile (HD)
Arena of Valor (Ultra)
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 35.5 °C / 96 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 63.2 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 34.5 °C / 94 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27 °C / 81 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Google Pixel 4 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 19.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.4% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 7% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 88% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 26% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 67% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Apple iPhone 11 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 13.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.3% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 10.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 37% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 55% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 56% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 37% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
desligado | 0.02 / 0.57 Watt |
Ocioso | 1.01 / 1.63 / 1.69 Watt |
Carga |
4.67 / 8.78 Watt |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Google Pixel 4 2800 mAh | Apple iPhone 11 3110 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S10e 3100 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9 3300 mAh | OnePlus 7T 3800 mAh | Huawei P30 Pro 4200 mAh | Google Pixel 3 2915 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | -14% | 10% | 19% | -9% | -10% | -10% | 1% | -4% | |
Idle Minimum * | 1.01 | 0.56 45% | 0.6 41% | 0.67 34% | 0.9 11% | 0.68 33% | 1.21 -20% | 0.939 ? 7% | 0.895 ? 11% |
Idle Average * | 1.63 | 2.99 -83% | 1.2 26% | 1.26 23% | 1.4 14% | 2.6 -60% | 2.01 -23% | 1.506 ? 8% | 1.447 ? 11% |
Idle Maximum * | 1.69 | 3.02 -79% | 1.5 11% | 1.29 24% | 2.9 -72% | 2.77 -64% | 2.05 -21% | 1.799 ? -6% | 1.608 ? 5% |
Load Average * | 4.67 | 4.17 11% | 5.2 -11% | 3.71 21% | 4.7 -1% | 3.74 20% | 4.06 13% | 4.61 ? 1% | 6.41 ? -37% |
Load Maximum * | 8.78 | 5.44 38% | 10.2 -16% | 9.3 -6% | 8.3 5% | 6.82 22% | 8.79 -0% | 9.04 ? -3% | 9.61 ? -9% |
* ... smaller is better
Google Pixel 4 2800 mAh | Apple iPhone 11 3110 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S10e 3100 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9 3300 mAh | OnePlus 7T 3800 mAh | Huawei P30 Pro 4200 mAh | Google Pixel 3 2915 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | 98% | 7% | 38% | 76% | 89% | 11% | |
Reader / Idle | 1007 | 2765 175% | 1185 18% | 1650 64% | 2003 99% | 1966 95% | 1372 36% |
H.264 | 617 | 1147 86% | 795 29% | 1008 63% | 967 57% | 1193 93% | 727 18% |
WiFi v1.3 | 460 | 866 88% | 416 -10% | 546 19% | 896 95% | 838 82% | 471 2% |
Load | 185 | 267 44% | 164 -11% | 194 5% | 283 53% | 344 86% | 159 -14% |
Pro
Contra
Achamos difícil incluir o Google Pixel 4 entre as fileiras de outros smartphones de gama alta. É muito mais parecido com carros-chefes mais acessíveis, como o OnePlus 7T ou o ZenFone 6. A Google continua focada no software, e não nas inovações de hardware. Os gestos sem toque são mais intuitivos do que no LG G8s; no entanto, eles não têm funcionalidade e profundidade e se sentem inacabados em geral.
Mais uma vez, a câmera é um dos principais atrativos do Pixel e agora possui uma lente telefoto adicional. Pena que não conta com uma lente de grande angular. A relação tela/corpo é bastante baixa, mas compensada pelo decente painel de 90 Hz. Infelizmente, a tela não é tão brilhante quanto alguns de seus concorrentes e, portanto, não é capaz de exibir o conteúdo HDR adequadamente.
O Pixel 4 da Google oferece uma ótima câmera e o software mais recente. Infelizmente, sua pequena bateria é uma grande desvantagem.
A capacidade de armazenamento é outro passo em falso. 64 GB sem possibilidade de expansão de memória simplesmente não são suficientes nessa faixa de preço, uma desvantagem que nem pode ser compensada por três anos completos de disponibilidade de atualização. No lado positivo, encontramos o carregamento rápido e uma carcaça com certificação IP68 que é novamente rapidamente marginalizado pela pequena bateria com sua fraca duração.
Se você gosta do Android vanilla puro e quer estar na vanguarda de recursos, um smartphone Pixel é indispensável para você. No entanto, você pode querer considerar um Pixel 3a. Sim, não é tão tecnologicamente avançado quanto o Pixel 4, mas oferece uma duração de bateria muito melhor, em troca.
Google Pixel 4
-
08/31/2022 v7 (old)
Daniel Schmidt