Breve Análise do Smartphone Apple iPhone XS
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
Networking | |
iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium | |
OnePlus 6 | |
Apple iPhone XS | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Huawei P20 Pro | |
iperf3 receive AX12 | |
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Apple iPhone XS | |
Huawei P20 Pro | |
OnePlus 6 |
|
iluminação: 94 %
iluminação com acumulador: 639 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 2.2 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
98.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 1.9
Apple iPhone XS OLED, 2436x1125, 5.8" | Apple iPhone X Super AMOLED, 2436x1125, 5.8" | Samsung Galaxy S9 Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 5.8" | Huawei P20 Pro OLED, 2240x1080, 6.1" | Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium LCD-IPS, 3840x2160, 5.8" | OnePlus 6 Optic AMOLED, 2280x1080, 6.3" | LG G7 ThinQ IPS, 3120x1440, 6.1" | HTC U12 Plus Super LCD 6, 2880x1440, 6" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | -7% | -21% | -3% | -70% | -53% | -159% | -24% | |
Brightness middle | 639 | 600 -6% | 529 -17% | 569 -11% | 477 -25% | 430 -33% | 974 52% | 395 -38% |
Brightness | 637 | 606 -5% | 527 -17% | 578 -9% | 453 -29% | 437 -31% | 975 53% | 402 -37% |
Brightness Distribution | 94 | 94 0% | 96 2% | 95 1% | 86 -9% | 87 -7% | 96 2% | 90 -4% |
Black Level * | 0.33 | 0.49 | 0.37 | |||||
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1 | 1.2 -20% | 1.4 -40% | 1.3 -30% | 2.1 -110% | 2.3 -130% | 5.4 -440% | 1.6 -60% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 2.2 | 3 -36% | 4 -82% | 2.1 5% | 8.2 -273% | 4.6 -109% | 13.1 -495% | 3.4 -55% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.2 | 1.6 27% | 1.6 27% | 1.6 27% | 1.6 27% | 2.4 -9% | 5 -127% | 1.1 50% |
Gamma | 1.9 116% | 2.23 99% | 2.16 102% | 2.31 95% | 2.28 96% | 2.28 96% | 2.31 95% | 2.14 103% |
CCT | 6364 102% | 6707 97% | 6358 102% | 6401 102% | 6425 101% | 6160 106% | 7480 87% | 6536 99% |
Contrast | 1445 | 1988 | 1068 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 240.4 Hz | ≤ 99 % brightness setting | |
The display backlight flickers at 240.4 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 240.4 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 8705 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. |
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2 ms rise | |
↘ 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. » 12 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
4.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2 ms rise | |
↘ 2.8 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. » 13 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). |
Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sort by value) | |
Apple iPhone XS | |
Apple iPhone X | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
LG G7 ThinQ | |
Huawei P20 Pro | |
OnePlus 6 | |
Average Apple A12 Bionic (2407 - 2873, n=6) | |
Average of class Smartphone (205 - 7616, n=57, last 2 years) |
* ... smaller is better
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 39.9 °C / 104 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 63.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 43.4 °C / 110 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.
Apple iPhone XS audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 17.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.6% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 26% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 66% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 46% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 47% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Samsung Galaxy S9 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.1% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.8% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 8% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 85% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 28% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 64% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 34.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 50% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 41% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 69% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 24% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
desligado | 0.01 / 0.12 Watt |
Ocioso | 0.95 / 1.34 / 1.48 Watt |
Carga |
4 / 5.13 Watt |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Apple iPhone XS 2658 mAh | Apple iPhone X 2716 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S9 3000 mAh | Huawei P20 Pro 4000 mAh | Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium 3540 mAh | OnePlus 6 3300 mAh | Average Apple A12 Bionic | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | -33% | 18% | 16% | -34% | -4% | -100% | -33% | |
Idle Minimum * | 0.95 | 1.03 -8% | 0.65 32% | 0.84 12% | 0.67 29% | 0.6 37% | 1.36 ? -43% | 0.882 ? 7% |
Idle Average * | 1.34 | 2.4 -79% | 0.81 40% | 1.54 -15% | 2.5 -87% | 1 25% | 3.41 ? -154% | 1.448 ? -8% |
Idle Maximum * | 1.48 | 2.6 -76% | 0.92 38% | 1.57 -6% | 2.51 -70% | 1.6 -8% | 4.05 ? -174% | 1.603 ? -8% |
Load Average * | 4 | 2.96 26% | 4.76 -19% | 2.47 38% | 4.3 -8% | 4.3 -8% | 6.4 ? -60% | 6.57 ? -64% |
Load Maximum * | 5.13 | 6.6 -29% | 5.16 -1% | 2.49 51% | 6.87 -34% | 8.6 -68% | 8.75 ? -71% | 9.92 ? -93% |
* ... smaller is better
Apple iPhone XS 2658 mAh | Apple iPhone X 2716 mAh | Apple iPhone Xs Max 3174 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S9 3000 mAh | Huawei P20 Pro 4000 mAh | Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium 3540 mAh | OnePlus 6 3300 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | -13% | 5% | -22% | 24% | -11% | 16% | |
Reader / Idle | 1442 | 1292 -10% | 1305 -10% | 1182 -18% | 1727 20% | 1347 -7% | 1806 25% |
H.264 | 745 | 634 -15% | 801 8% | 609 -18% | 784 5% | 520 -30% | 791 6% |
WiFi v1.3 | 570 | 564 -1% | 742 30% | 474 -17% | 744 31% | 547 -4% | 762 34% |
Load | 245 | 180 -27% | 223 -9% | 164 -33% | 345 41% | 235 -4% | 246 0% |
Pro
Contra
O Apple iPhone XS é um exercício de ajuste fino. O dispositivo tem não apenas um SoC mais rápido e econômico do que seu antecessor, mas também possui uma câmera mais dinâmica, opções de armazenamento maiores, uma classificação IP aprimorada e melhorias no SO associadas ao salto para o iOS 12. Acima de tudo, a função de tempo na tela pode ser útil para os pais que desejam restringir o tempo gasto pelos filhos em jogos. O design do dispositivo permanece o mesmo, mas esperamos que com dispositivos “S”. A única mudança estética é que a Apple também vende o XS em uma nova cor dourada, da qual gostamos particularmente.
O Apple iPhone XS oferece muita tecnologia pelo preço de um pequeno MacBook Pro ou um iMac.
O XS tem algumas desvantagens, mas sem falhas reais. A duração da bateria é boa e melhor do que a do iPhone X. A nova série iPhone XS também enterrou o Touch ID, e todos os novos iPhones dependem apenas da identificação facial para segurança biométrica. Além disso, enquanto a Apple melhorou o desempenho da câmera com pouca luz, a lente telefoto é perceptivelmente inferior ao sensor principal da câmera. Gostaríamos que a Apple tivesse usado um melhor sensor de telefoto, já que também criticamos o iPhone X pelo mesmo motivo.
Nossa maior crítica ao iPhone XS é seu preço. O modelo de 64 GB está a partir de 1.149 Euros (~$1.347) com a versão de 512 GB custando ridículos 1.549 Euros (~$1.817). Você precisará ir fundo para comprar o iPhone mais recente, e o XS não traz novos recursos suficientes para justificar a atualização do iPhone X. Por fim, a última palavra sobre o assunto é a de sua carteira.