Breve Análise do Poco X3 NFC - Campeão de equipamentos de gama média
Comparison Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
81.8 % v7 (old) | 10/2020 | Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC SD 732G, Adreno 618 | 215 g | 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
80.7 % v7 (old) | 05/2020 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S SD 720G, Adreno 618 | 209 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
82.9 % v7 (old) | 08/2020 | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite SD 730G, Adreno 618 | 204 g | 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.47" | 2340x1080 | |
83.6 % v7 (old) | 09/2020 | Google Pixel 4a SD 730G, Adreno 618 | 143 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 5.80" | 2340x1080 | |
85.2 % v7 (old) | 05/2020 | Apple iPhone SE 2020 A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU | 148 g | 128 GB NVMe | 4.70" | 1334x750 | |
81.3 % v7 (old) | 10/2020 | Samsung Galaxy M51 SD 730, Adreno 618 | 213 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.70" | 2400x1080 |
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
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.
WeitwinkelWeitwinkelUltraweitwinkelZoom (5-fach)Low-Light
|
iluminação: 93 %
iluminação com acumulador: 623 cd/m²
Contraste: 1154:1 (Preto: 0.54 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.8 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.93
ΔE Greyscale 3.3 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
99.7% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.26
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC IPS, 2400x1080, 6.7" | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S IPS, 2400x1080, 6.7" | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.5" | Google Pixel 4a OLED, 2340x1080, 5.8" | Apple iPhone SE 2020 IPS, 1334x750, 4.7" | Samsung Galaxy M51 Super AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.7" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | -27% | 29% | 34% | 41% | -23% | |
Brightness middle | 623 | 622 0% | 605 -3% | 705 13% | 688 10% | 626 0% |
Brightness | 600 | 612 2% | 608 1% | 707 18% | 659 10% | 632 5% |
Brightness Distribution | 93 | 94 1% | 95 2% | 96 3% | 92 -1% | 94 1% |
Black Level * | 0.54 | 0.56 -4% | 0.28 48% | |||
Contrast | 1154 | 1111 -4% | 2457 113% | |||
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.8 | 3.98 -121% | 0.84 53% | 0.9 50% | 1 44% | 2.88 -60% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 4.7 | 7.33 -56% | 1.8 62% | 1.9 60% | 2.2 53% | 4.97 -6% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 3.3 | 4.5 -36% | 1.3 61% | 1.3 61% | 1.7 48% | 5.9 -79% |
Gamma | 2.26 97% | 2.206 100% | 2.211 100% | 2.26 97% | 2.25 98% | 3.441 64% |
CCT | 6712 97% | 7361 88% | 6310 103% | 6576 99% | 6790 96% | 6415 101% |
Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 114.9 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 2358 Hz | ≤ 40 % brightness setting | |
The display backlight flickers at 2358 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 40 % 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: 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 | ||
---|---|---|
26.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 11.6 ms rise | |
↘ 14.8 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. » 62 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (21 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
44.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 21.6 ms rise | |
↘ 22.8 ms fall | ||
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 73 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). |
VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G (2373 - 2538, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (2523 - 10071, n=6, last 2 years) |
AImark - Score v2.x (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC | |
Apple iPhone SE 2020 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G (4958 - 35458, n=3) | |
Average of class Smartphone (1043 - 7865, n=2, last 2 years) |
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
Apple iPhone SE 2020 (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=162, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC (Chrome 85) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G (49.5 - 53.4, n=3) | |
Samsung Galaxy M51 (Chrome 85) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
Google Pixel 4a (Chrome 85) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite (Chrome 83.0.4103.106) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Apple iPhone SE 2020 (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G (89.8 - 92.4, n=3) | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC (Chrome 85) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
Google Pixel 4a (Chrome 85) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite (Chrome 83.0.4103.106) | |
Samsung Galaxy M51 (Chrome 85) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Apple iPhone SE 2020 (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=148, last 2 years) | |
Google Pixel 4a (Chrome 85) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chome 81) | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC (Chrome 85) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G (41.4 - 43.9, n=3) | |
Samsung Galaxy M51 (Chome 85) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite (Chrome 83.0.4103.106) |
WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=82, last 2 years) | |
Apple iPhone SE 2020 (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC (Chrome 85) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G (71 - 73, n=3) | |
Google Pixel 4a (Chrome 85) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite (Chrome 83.0.4103.106) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
Samsung Galaxy M51 (Chrome 85) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Apple iPhone SE 2020 (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=204, last 2 years) | |
Google Pixel 4a (Chrome 85) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G (17293 - 17817, n=3) | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC (Chrome 85) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
Samsung Galaxy M51 (Chrome 85) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite (Chrome 83.0.4103.106) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
Google Pixel 4a (Chrome 85) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite (Chrome 83.0.4103.106) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
Samsung Galaxy M51 (Chrome 85) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G (2673 - 2832, n=2) | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC (Chrome 85) | |
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=161, last 2 years) | |
Apple iPhone SE 2020 (Safari Mobile 13.1) |
* ... smaller is better
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite | Google Pixel 4a | Samsung Galaxy M51 | Average 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | 7% | 11% | 35% | 3% | -6% | 322% | |
Sequential Read 256KB | 506 | 496.6 -2% | 501 -1% | 502 -1% | 491.7 -3% | 513 ? 1% | 1834 ? 262% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 173.1 | 214.8 24% | 213.2 23% | 246.8 43% | 189.8 10% | 175.2 ? 1% | 1426 ? 724% |
Random Read 4KB | 123.4 | 137 11% | 134.6 9% | 162.9 32% | 123.6 0% | 117.1 ? -5% | 278 ? 125% |
Random Write 4KB | 112.6 | 123.6 10% | 125.8 12% | 187.4 66% | 114.5 2% | 81.1 ? -28% | 310 ? 175% |
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 75.2 ? | 74.5 ? -1% | 74.8 ? -1% | 73.4 ? -2% | |||
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 55.6 ? | 54.9 ? -1% | 59.4 ? 7% | 55.4 ? 0% |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 39 °C / 102 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 37.3 °C / 99 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.2 °C / 85 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (89.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.9% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.4% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 12% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 81% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 33% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 59% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 64.7% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 64.7% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 64.7% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (119.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 87% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 3% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 96% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
desligado | 0.02 / 0.28 Watt |
Ocioso | 0.93 / 2.47 / 2.51 Watt |
Carga |
5.62 / 6.93 Watt |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC 5160 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S 5020 mAh | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite 5260 mAh | Google Pixel 4a 3140 mAh | Apple iPhone SE 2020 1822 mAh | Samsung Galaxy M51 7000 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | -9% | 29% | 48% | 45% | 21% | 11% | 6% | |
Idle Minimum * | 0.93 | 1.5 -61% | 0.8 14% | 0.49 47% | 0.44 53% | 0.8 14% | 0.93 ? -0% | 0.895 ? 4% |
Idle Average * | 2.47 | 2.1 15% | 1.1 55% | 0.96 61% | 1.56 37% | 1.3 47% | 2.09 ? 15% | 1.447 ? 41% |
Idle Maximum * | 2.51 | 2.5 -0% | 1.8 28% | 1 60% | 1.63 35% | 1.8 28% | 2.13 ? 15% | 1.608 ? 36% |
Load Average * | 5.62 | 5.2 7% | 3.7 34% | 3.11 45% | 2.32 59% | 4.8 15% | 4.6 ? 18% | 6.41 ? -14% |
Load Maximum * | 6.93 | 7.5 -8% | 6.1 12% | 5.23 25% | 4.12 41% | 7 -1% | 6.5 ? 6% | 9.61 ? -39% |
* ... smaller is better
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC 5160 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S 5020 mAh | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite 5260 mAh | Google Pixel 4a 3140 mAh | Apple iPhone SE 2020 1822 mAh | Samsung Galaxy M51 7000 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | 2% | 7% | -20% | -38% | 29% | |
Reader / Idle | 2427 | 2263 -7% | 2249 -7% | 2270 -6% | 1938 -20% | 2642 9% |
H.264 | 1188 | 1269 7% | 1370 15% | 1045 -12% | 681 -43% | 1685 42% |
WiFi v1.3 | 1116 | 1187 6% | 1095 -2% | 669 -40% | 694 -38% | 1508 35% |
Load | 280 | 279 0% | 337 20% | 225 -20% | 143 -49% | 365 30% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto - Uma forte relação preço-desempenho
O Poco X3 NFC oferece um equipamento excelente, principalmente quando se considera o preço baixo, já que o smartphone está normalmente disponível a partir de 230 euros (~$ 272) e à venda até às vezes abaixo de 200 euros (~$ 236).
Apesar do preço baixo, o smartphone Xiaomi se apresenta muito completo e ainda oferece características de equipamentos modernos como tela de 120 Hz e novo SoC. O equipamento da câmera também é exemplar nesta classe de preços, mas recebe sua parcela de reclamações neste teste. Embora o sistema de câmera quádrupla ofereça boas especificações no papel, as duas lentes adicionais de 2 MP não oferecem nenhum valor adicional específico.
O Poco X3 NFC oferece um equipamento muito completo a um preço acessível.
As restrições no modo de desenvolvedor e os anúncios no sistema são certamente irritantes e provavelmente não sem problemas para aqueles que se preocupam com a privacidade de dados. Mas a maioria dos usuários não terá nenhum interesse no modo de desenvolvedor. E isso não muda nada sobre o fato de que atualmente provavelmente não há smartphone melhor equipado nesta classe de preço do que o Poco X3.
Então, por que você ainda deve escolher um Pixel 4a ou um iPhone SE mais caro? Ambos oferecem uma melhor qualidade de câmera, mesmo que as funções sejam mais limitadas. E o longo suporte de atualização com o telefone do Google e da Apple também tornará essas soluções mais duradouras, já que apenas a atualização para o Android 11 é relativamente provável para o Poco neste momento. Porém, em termos de quantidade de funcionalidades, o Poco X3 é o vencedor claro.
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC
-
10/13/2020 v7 (old)
Daniel Schmidt