Breve Análise do Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra - O Smartphone com recursos poderosos e S Pen incluído
Comparison devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
89.6 % v7 (old) | 02/2021 | Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11 | 208 g | 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.90" | 3088x1440 | |
87.5 % v7 (old) | 09/2019 | Samsung Galaxy Note10+ Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12 | 196 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.80" | 3040x1440 | |
89 % v7 (old) | 12/2019 | Huawei Mate 30 Pro Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16 | 198 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.53" | 2400x1176 | |
88.2 % v7 (old) | 04/2020 | Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro SD 865, Adreno 650 | 208 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2340x1080 | |
87.1 % v7 (old) | 09/2019 | Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU | 226 g | 64 GB SSD | 6.50" | 2688x1242 |
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.
WeitwinkelWeitwinkelLow-LightZoomUltraweitwinkel
|
iluminação: 96 %
iluminação com acumulador: 860 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.5 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 2.4 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
96.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra Dynamic AMOLED, 3088x1440, 6.9" | Samsung Galaxy Note10+ Dynamic AMOLED, 3040x1440, 6.8" | Huawei Mate 30 Pro OLED, 2400x1176, 6.5" | Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.7" | Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max OLED, 2688x1242, 6.5" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | 9% | 4% | 30% | 23% | |
Brightness middle | 860 | 683 -21% | 592 -31% | 753 -12% | 790 -8% |
Brightness | 878 | 694 -21% | 605 -31% | 762 -13% | 790 -10% |
Brightness Distribution | 96 | 96 0% | 96 0% | 96 0% | 97 1% |
Black Level * | |||||
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.5 | 2.9 36% | 2.5 44% | 0.9 80% | 1.4 69% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 10.4 | 4.8 54% | 5.5 47% | 1.6 85% | 3.4 67% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.4 | 2.2 8% | 2.6 -8% | 1.5 37% | 1.9 21% |
Gamma | 2 110% | 2.11 104% | 2.16 102% | 2.24 98% | 2.23 99% |
CCT | 6466 101% | 6247 104% | 6173 105% | 6415 101% | 6466 101% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 245.1 Hz | ≤ 99 % brightness setting | |
The display backlight flickers at 245.1 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 99 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 245.1 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8746 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. |
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
3.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 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. » 11 % 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 | ||
8.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 4.4 ms rise | |
↘ 4.4 ms fall | ||
The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 18 % 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) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10+ | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (13627 - 14760, n=5) | |
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10+ | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (10008 - 11784, n=5) |
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro | |
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (296746 - 527820, n=5) |
Basemark GPU 1.1 | |
1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10+ | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (71.4 - 71.6, n=2) | |
Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10+ | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (42.3 - 63, n=2) | |
1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10+ | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (84.1 - 85.6, n=2) |
VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10+ | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (4607 - 4957, n=3) | |
Average of class Smartphone (2523 - 10071, n=6, last 2 years) |
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=161, last 2 years) | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra (Chrome 84) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (50.6 - 56.8, n=5) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10+ (Samung Browser 9.2) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra (Chrome 84) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (89.3 - 96.2, n=5) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10+ (Samsung Browser 9.2) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=146, last 2 years) | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (50.8 - 64.4, n=4) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10+ (Samsung Browser 9.2) |
WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10+ (Samsung Browser 9.2) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra (Chrome 84) | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (86 - 102, n=5) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=203, last 2 years) | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra (Chrome 84) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10+ (Samsung Browser 9.2) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (18094 - 20022, n=5) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10+ (Samsung Browser 9.2) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (2294 - 2511, n=5) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra (Chrome 84) | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=160, last 2 years) | |
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1) |
* ... smaller is better
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra | Samsung Galaxy Note10+ | Huawei Mate 30 Pro | Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro | Average 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | -7% | 7% | 13% | 28% | 43% | |
Sequential Read 256KB | 1782 | 1504 -16% | 1781 0% | 1739 -2% | 1749 ? -2% | 1839 ? 3% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 802 | 588 -27% | 401.8 -50% | 750 -6% | 1163 ? 45% | 1425 ? 78% |
Random Read 4KB | 186.7 | 196.2 5% | 226.4 21% | 264.9 42% | 286 ? 53% | 277 ? 48% |
Random Write 4KB | 217.7 | 183.6 -16% | 259.2 19% | 258.5 19% | 319 ? 47% | 309 ? 42% |
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 65.6 ? | 71 ? 8% | 82.5 ? 26% | 75.9 ? 16% | ||
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 55.6 ? | 59.5 ? 7% | 69.2 ? 24% | 61.9 ? 11% |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 33.8 °C / 93 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 31.1 °C / 88 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 25.7 °C / 78 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.1% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (1.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (14.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 1% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 97% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 17% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 79% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 15.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.7% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.8% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 23% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 69% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 44% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 49% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
desligado | 0.01 / 0.24 Watt |
Ocioso | 0.65 / 1.06 / 1.49 Watt |
Carga |
4.91 / 10.29 Watt |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 4500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy Note10+ 4300 mAh | Huawei Mate 30 Pro 4500 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro 4500 mAh | Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max 3969 mAh | Average Samsung Exynos 990 | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | -31% | -13% | 9% | -49% | -22% | -22% | |
Idle Minimum * | 0.65 | 0.7 -8% | 0.87 -34% | 0.61 6% | 0.92 -42% | 0.846 ? -30% | 0.894 ? -38% |
Idle Average * | 1.06 | 1.81 -71% | 1.75 -65% | 1.19 -12% | 2.9 -174% | 1.534 ? -45% | 1.456 ? -37% |
Idle Maximum * | 1.49 | 1.92 -29% | 1.83 -23% | 1.23 17% | 2.94 -97% | 1.858 ? -25% | 1.616 ? -8% |
Load Average * | 4.91 | 7.57 -54% | 3.85 22% | 4.18 15% | 3.65 26% | 5.14 ? -5% | 6.45 ? -31% |
Load Maximum * | 10.29 | 9.34 9% | 6.64 35% | 8.53 17% | 6.18 40% | 10.7 ? -4% | 9.8 ? 5% |
* ... smaller is better
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 4500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy Note10+ 4300 mAh | Huawei Mate 30 Pro 4500 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro 4500 mAh | Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max 3969 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | -1% | 21% | 16% | 53% | |
Reader / Idle | 1223 | 1585 30% | 2174 78% | 2133 74% | 2618 114% |
H.264 | 993 | 934 -6% | 1098 11% | 973 -2% | 1346 36% |
WiFi v1.3 | 644 | 532 -17% | 823 28% | 865 34% | 909 41% |
Load | 338 | 305 -10% | 219 -35% | 198 -41% | 408 21% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto - Uma escolha difícil
Na hora dos testes, o Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra é um dos melhores smartphones disponíveis. O phablet brilha no teste com uma tela AMOLED muito brilhante, alta velocidade do sistema, uma câmera boa e versátil, alto-falantes agradáveis e um design sofisticado. E ainda há a S Pen, um produto muito desenvolvido com muitos recursos excelentes.
O Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra oferece um pacote bastante completo, e a promessa de atualização de três anos garante uma vida longa.
Apenas uma olhada nos detalhes revela pequenos aborrecimentos; isso inclui, acima de tudo, o dilema dos diferentes SoCs, que simplesmente deixa um gosto ruim na boca. Não apenas o desempenho é mais fraco com o SoC Exynos, mas a eficiência energética também sofre, e o 5G tem que lidar com a falta de suporte para mmWave. A calibração da tela poderia ter sido um pouco mais precisa também; embora isso seja dificilmente perceptível a olho nu, impede uma melhor avaliação da tela. Além disso, também seria de se esperar de um produto de última geração que o modo de 120 Hz do painel funcionasse em resolução QHD+ também.
Para os amantes do Note, não há maneira de contornar o Galaxy Note20 Ultra, mas os proprietários da versão do ano passado, em particular, encontrarão pouco incentivo para atualizar, já que a Samsung simplesmente não melhorou alguns detalhes. Os usuários que não têm problemas com o preço alto receberão um ótimo smartphone.
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra
- 08/31/2022 v7 (old)
Daniel Schmidt