Breve Análise do Smartphone Blackview R7

Name: Blackview R7
Brand: Blackview

Smartphone carro-chefe de baixo orçamento? Smartphone carro-chefe de baixo orçamento? O R7 é o primeiro smartphone autodenominado carro-chefe do fabricante chinês Blackview – por um preço ao redor dos 160 Euros (~$180). Vamos ver como o novo carro-chefe se desempenha em nossa análise.

Marcus Herbrich, ✓ Tanja Hinum (traduzido por Ricardo Soto), Published 09/16/2016 🇺🇸 🇩🇪 ...

Android Smartphone Phablet Touchscreen

Test device courtesy of Blackview

Download your licensed rating image as PNG / SVG

Blackview R7

Processador

Mediatek Helio P10 MT6755 8 x 2 GHz, Cortex-A53

Placa gráfica

ARM Mali-T860 MP2

Memória

4 GB

Pantalha

5.50 polegadas 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel 401 PPI, capacitiva, LCD, IPS, Brilhante: sim

Disco rígido

32 GB eMMC Flash, 32 GB

, 25.43 GB livre

Conexões

1 USB 2.0, Conexões Audio: Conector estéreo de 3,5 mm, Card Reader: microSD (até 128 GB), 1 Leitor de Impressões Digitais, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensores: Proximidade, Acelerômetro, OTG, Miracast

Funcionamento em rede

802.11 b/g/n (b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/), Bluetooth 4.0, 2G: 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 MHz, 3G: 900 / 2100 MHz, 4G: LTE 800 / 900 / 1800 / 2100 / 2600 4G: 1900/ 2300/ 2600 MHz, Dual SIM, LTE, GPS

Tamanho

altura x largura x profundidade (em mm): 8.9 x 152 x 78

Bateria

3000 mAh Lítio-Polímero, Duração da bateria (de acordo com o fabricante): 334 h, Tempo de conversação 3G (de acordo com o fabricante): 14 h

Sistema Operativo

Android 6.0 Marshmallow

Camera

Primary Camera: 13 MPix
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix

Características adicionais

Alto falantes: Mono, Teclado: On-screen, Iluminação do Teclado: sim, Adaptador de força modular, cabo USB, protetor de tela, carcaça protetiva, Blackview UI, 12 Meses Garantia, fanless

peso

197 g, Suprimento de energia: 93 g

Preço

160 Euro

Links

Blackview página inicial

Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

see all specifications

Size Comparison

Networking
iperf Server (receive) TCP 1 m
Xiaomi Mi 5 Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash	316 MBit/s +210%
Blackview R7 Mali-T860 MP2, Helio P10 MT6755, 32 GB eMMC Flash	102 MBit/s
Honor 5C Mali-T830 MP2, Kirin 650, 16 GB eMMC Flash	49.8 MBit/s -51%
iperf Client (transmit) TCP 1 m
Xiaomi Mi 5 Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash	265 MBit/s +234%
Blackview R7 Mali-T860 MP2, Helio P10 MT6755, 32 GB eMMC Flash	79.4 MBit/s
Honor 5C Mali-T830 MP2, Kirin 650, 16 GB eMMC Flash	58.3 MBit/s -27%

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 1 Scene 2 Scene 3

click to load images

click to load images

click to load images


506 cd/m²	554 cd/m²	529 cd/m²
503 cd/m²	552 cd/m²	517 cd/m²
504 cd/m²	541 cd/m²	531 cd/m²

Distribuição do brilho

LCD tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2

Máximo: 554 cd/m² (Nits) Médio: 526.3 cd/m² Minimum: 28.36 cd/m²
iluminação: 91 %
iluminação com acumulador: 552 cd/m²
Contraste: 863:1 (Preto: 0.64 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 11 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 14.3 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
Gamma: 2.21

	Blackview R7 IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5"	ZTE Blade V7 Lite IPS, 1280x720, 5"	Coolpad Torino S IPS, 1280x720, 4.7"	LG K10 IPS, 1280x720, 5.3"	Honor 5C IPS, 1920x1080, 5.2"	Xiaomi Mi 5 IPS, 1920x1080, 5.2"
Screen		25%	12%	18%	22%	36%
Brightness middle	552	312 -43%	360 -35%	370 -33%	515 -7%	598 8%
Brightness	526	302 -43%	358 -32%	355 -33%	498 -5%	566 8%
Brightness Distribution	91	79 -13%	87 -4%	92 1%	93 2%	90 -1%
Black Level *	0.64	0.15 77%	0.45 30%	0.28 56%	0.49 23%	0.51 20%
Contrast	863	2080 141%	800 -7%	1321 53%	1051 22%	1173 36%
Colorchecker dE 2000 *	11	8.2 25%	6.8 38%	6.7 39%	6.2 44%	3.5 68%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *	20.8	16.5 21%	11.3 46%	17.8 14%	11.4 45%	6.1 71%
Greyscale dE 2000 *	14.3	9.2 36%	6.2 57%	7.9 45%	7.4 48%	3.5 76%
Gamma	2.21 ^100%	2.29 ^96%	2.14 ^103%	2.21 ^100%	2.28 ^96%	2.29 ^96%
CCT	12996 ^50%	9017 ^72%	7975 ^82%	9072 ^72%	8664 ^75%	6532 ^100%

* ... smaller is better

Display Response Times

ℹ

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
28 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 10 ms rise
28 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 18 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. » 68 % 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
32 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 10 ms rise
32 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 22 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. » 38 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

ℹ

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 not detected

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.

AndroBench 3-5
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard (sort by value)
Blackview R7	11.87 MB/s
ZTE Blade V7 Lite	12.62 MB/s +6%
Coolpad Torino S	16.54 MB/s +39%
LG K10	45 MB/s +279%
Honor 5C	24.21 MB/s +104%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard (sort by value)
Blackview R7	15.56 MB/s
ZTE Blade V7 Lite	22.77 MB/s +46%
Coolpad Torino S	25.79 MB/s +66%
LG K10	75.5 MB/s +385%
Honor 5C	51.9 MB/s +234%
Random Write 4KB (sort by value)
Blackview R7	11.4 MB/s
ZTE Blade V7 Lite	8.26 MB/s -28%
Coolpad Torino S	6.94 MB/s -39%
LG K10	7.5 MB/s -34%
Honor 5C	15.7 MB/s +38%
Xiaomi Mi 5	13.61 MB/s +19%
Random Read 4KB (sort by value)
Blackview R7	28.02 MB/s
ZTE Blade V7 Lite	18.24 MB/s -35%
Coolpad Torino S	18.34 MB/s -35%
LG K10	9.2 MB/s -67%
Honor 5C	61.7 MB/s +120%
Xiaomi Mi 5	106.8 MB/s +281%
Sequential Write 256KB (sort by value)
Blackview R7	122.7 MB/s
ZTE Blade V7 Lite	70.3 MB/s -43%
Coolpad Torino S	41.81 MB/s -66%
LG K10	78 MB/s -36%
Honor 5C	75.5 MB/s -38%
Xiaomi Mi 5	159.3 MB/s +30%
Sequential Read 256KB (sort by value)
Blackview R7	247.6 MB/s
ZTE Blade V7 Lite	187.3 MB/s -24%
Coolpad Torino S	140.3 MB/s -43%
LG K10	131 MB/s -47%
Honor 5C	263 MB/s +6%
Xiaomi Mi 5	459.6 MB/s +86%

AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Blackview R7	50572 Points
ZTE Blade V7 Lite	23822 Points -53%
Coolpad Torino S	22766 Points -55%
LG K10	27383 Points -46%
Honor 5C	53143 Points +5%
Xiaomi Mi 5	116330 Points +130%

3DMark
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Blackview R7	10762 Points
ZTE Blade V7 Lite	3070 Points -71%
Coolpad Torino S	4430 Points -59%
LG K10	4339 Points -60%
Honor 5C	11755 Points +9%
Xiaomi Mi 5	29246 Points +172%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Blackview R7	10334 Points
ZTE Blade V7 Lite	2645 Points -74%
Coolpad Torino S	3858 Points -63%
LG K10	3774 Points -63%
Honor 5C	11319 Points +10%
Xiaomi Mi 5	32613 Points +216%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Blackview R7	12585 Points
ZTE Blade V7 Lite	7026 Points -44%
Coolpad Torino S	9205 Points -27%
LG K10	9106 Points -28%
Honor 5C	13588 Points +8%
Xiaomi Mi 5	21483 Points +71%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Blackview R7	590 Points
ZTE Blade V7 Lite	124 Points -79%
Coolpad Torino S	52 Points -91%
LG K10	52 Points -91%
Honor 5C	563 Points -5%
Xiaomi Mi 5	3542 Points +500%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Blackview R7	518 Points
ZTE Blade V7 Lite	101 Points -81%
Coolpad Torino S	41 Points -92%
LG K10	41 Points -92%
Honor 5C	480 Points -7%
Xiaomi Mi 5	4558 Points +780%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Blackview R7	1155 Points
ZTE Blade V7 Lite	618 Points -46%
Coolpad Torino S	735 Points -36%
LG K10	730 Points -37%
Honor 5C	1418 Points +23%
Xiaomi Mi 5	1976 Points +71%

GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value)
Blackview R7	17 fps
ZTE Blade V7 Lite	8.2 fps -52%
Coolpad Torino S	5.3 fps -69%
LG K10	9.7 fps -43%
Honor 5C	20 fps +18%
Xiaomi Mi 5	60 fps +253%
1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value)
Blackview R7	17 fps
ZTE Blade V7 Lite	4.9 fps -71%
Coolpad Torino S	9.8 fps -42%
LG K10	5.2 fps -69%
Honor 5C	19 fps +12%
Xiaomi Mi 5	90 fps +429%

GFXBench 3.0
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Blackview R7	4.7 fps
ZTE Blade V7 Lite	1.8 fps -62%
Coolpad Torino S	1.8 fps -62%
LG K10	4.1 fps -13%
Honor 5C	8.4 fps +79%
Xiaomi Mi 5	42 fps +794%
1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value)
Blackview R7	4.7 fps
ZTE Blade V7 Lite	3.4 fps -28%
Coolpad Torino S	4.3 fps -9%
LG K10	1.8 fps -62%
Honor 5C	7.9 fps +68%
Xiaomi Mi 5	42 fps +794%

GFXBench 3.1
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Blackview R7	2.5 fps
ZTE Blade V7 Lite	1.2 fps -52%
LG K10	fps -100%
Honor 5C	4.9 fps +96%
Xiaomi Mi 5	31 fps +1140%
1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Blackview R7	2.5 fps
ZTE Blade V7 Lite	2.5 fps 0%
LG K10	fps -100%
Honor 5C	4.5 fps +80%
Xiaomi Mi 5	30 fps +1100%

PCMark for Android - Work performance score (sort by value)
Blackview R7	4364 Points
Coolpad Torino S	3932 Points -10%
LG K10	3999 Points -8%
Honor 5C	5120 Points +17%
Xiaomi Mi 5	6873 Points +57%

BaseMark OS II
Overall (sort by value)
Blackview R7	338 Points
ZTE Blade V7 Lite	448 Points +33%
Coolpad Torino S	602 Points +78%
LG K10	536 Points +59%
Honor 5C	1225 Points +262%
Xiaomi Mi 5	2392 Points +608%
System (sort by value)
Blackview R7	1971 Points
ZTE Blade V7 Lite	801 Points -59%
Coolpad Torino S	1102 Points -44%
LG K10	1050 Points -47%
Honor 5C	2600 Points +32%
Xiaomi Mi 5	3638 Points +85%
Memory (sort by value)
Blackview R7	1030 Points
ZTE Blade V7 Lite	487 Points -53%
Coolpad Torino S	607 Points -41%
LG K10	453 Points -56%
Honor 5C	1504 Points +46%
Xiaomi Mi 5	1801 Points +75%
Graphics (sort by value)
Blackview R7	655 Points
ZTE Blade V7 Lite	174 Points -73%
Coolpad Torino S	321 Points -51%
LG K10	310 Points -53%
Honor 5C	814 Points +24%
Xiaomi Mi 5	4522 Points +590%
Web (sort by value)
Blackview R7	10 Points
ZTE Blade V7 Lite	592 Points +5820%
Coolpad Torino S	599 Points +5890%
LG K10	562 Points +5520%
Honor 5C	707 Points +6970%
Xiaomi Mi 5	1106 Points +10960%

JetStream 1.1 - Total Score (sort by value)
Blackview R7	25.35 Points
ZTE Blade V7 Lite	12.73 Points -50%
Coolpad Torino S	14.45 Points -43%
LG K10	17.48 Points -31%
Honor 5C	27.93 Points +10%
Xiaomi Mi 5	54 Points +113%

Octane V2 - Total Score (sort by value)
Blackview R7	3885 Points
ZTE Blade V7 Lite	1910 Points -51%
Coolpad Torino S	2364 Points -39%
LG K10	2838 Points -27%
Honor 5C	4188 Points +8%
Xiaomi Mi 5	8619 Points +122%

Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total (sort by value)
Blackview R7	9748 ms *
ZTE Blade V7 Lite	19234 ms * -97%
Coolpad Torino S	15784 ms * -62%
LG K10	16638 ms * -71%
Honor 5C	9111 ms * +7%
Xiaomi Mi 5	2973 ms * +70%

Legend

Blackview R7 Mediatek Helio P10 MT6755, ARM Mali-T860 MP2, 32 GB eMMC Flash

ZTE Blade V7 Lite Mediatek MT6735, ARM Mali-T720, 16 GB eMMC Flash

Coolpad Torino S Qualcomm Snapdragon 410 MSM8916, Qualcomm Adreno 306, 16 GB eMMC Flash

LG K10 Qualcomm Snapdragon 410 MSM8916, Qualcomm Adreno 306, 16 GB eMMC Flash

Honor 5C HiSilicon Kirin 650, ARM Mali-T830 MP2, 16 GB eMMC Flash

Xiaomi Mi 5 Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 MSM8996, Qualcomm Adreno 530, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash

* ... smaller is better

Carga Máxima

Inatividade


38.4 °C	34.4 °C	33.4 °C
39 °C	35.2 °C	35.1 °C
37.8 °C	34.8 °C	33.7 °C

Máximo: 39 °C
Médio: 35.8 °C


32.2 °C	34.2 °C	40.1 °C
32.5 °C	33.8 °C	41.8 °C
32.6 °C	34 °C	39.5 °C

Máximo: 41.8 °C
Médio: 35.6 °C

alimentação elétrica 33.5 °C | Temperatura do quarto 21.1 °C | Voltcraft IR-350

(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 35.8 °C / 96 F, compared to the average of 32.8 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) 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 41.8 °C / 107 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 31 °C / 88 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.

Blackview R7 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (74.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 30.5% lower than median
(-) | bass is not linear (15.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 9.8% lower than median
(-) | mids are not linear (15.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 11.7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (44.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 85% of all tested devices in this class were better, 0% similar, 14% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 95% of all tested devices were better, 0% similar, 5% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

ZTE Blade V7 Lite audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 35.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.8% 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
» 68% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 25% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Honor 5C audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 30.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 7.1% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 12.1% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (2.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (31.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 79% of all tested devices in this class were better, 3% similar, 18% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 89% of all tested devices were better, 2% similar, 9% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Coolpad Torino S audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 39.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 7.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.8% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (29% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 73% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 23% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 85% of all tested devices were better, 2% similar, 12% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Consumo de energia

desligado	0.17 / 1.41 Watt
Ocioso	1.83 / 3.21 / 3.45 Watt
Carga	5.67 / 9.16 Watt


Key: min: , med: , max: Metrahit Energy

	Blackview R7 3000 mAh	ZTE Blade V7 Lite 2500 mAh	Coolpad Torino S 1800 mAh	Honor 5C 3000 mAh	Xiaomi Mi 5 3000 mAh
Power Consumption		57%	45%	41%	31%
Idle Minimum *	1.83	0.63 66%	0.68 63%	0.89 51%	0.45 75%
Idle Average *	3.21	1.37 57%	2.2 31%	2.07 36%	1.68 48%
Idle Maximum *	3.45	1.71 50%	2.26 34%	2.15 38%	1.71 50%
Load Average *	5.67	2.82 50%	3.47 39%	3.46 39%	6.7 -18%
Load Maximum *	9.16	3.36 63%	3.71 59%	5.18 43%	9.18 -0%

* ... smaller is better

Tempo de Execução da Bateria


WiFi Websurfing		6h 52min

	Blackview R7 3000 mAh	ZTE Blade V7 Lite 2500 mAh	Coolpad Torino S 1800 mAh	LG K10 2300 mAh	Honor 5C 3000 mAh	Xiaomi Mi 5 3000 mAh
Battery Runtime
WiFi v1.3	412	517 25%	397 -4%	453 10%	584 42%	504 22%

Pro

+ Resolução de 1080p

+ 4 GB de RAM

+ 32 GB de ROM

+ Painel IPS brilhante.

+ Leitor de digitais

+ LTE (banda 20)

+ Desempenho

+ Preço-desempenho

Contra

- Qualidade de construção dos botões

- Alto falantes

- Fotos da câmera com tonalidade de cores

- Peso

- Valor do preto/contraste da tela

In review: Blackview R7. Test model courtesy of Blackview.

Se avaliar-nos o Blackview R7 como o que é – um econômico smartphone convencional e não como um smartphone carro chefe, nosso veredicto é bastante positivo. O armazenamento interno de 32 GB e 4 GB de RAM estão quase sobre dimensionados para esta faixa de preços. A combinação com o Helio P10 SoC garante um desempenho fluente do sistema. Exceto pelos botões dedicados, inclusive a qualidade do chassi é convincente.

Coisas que não gostamos muito incluem o lento leitor de cartões microSD integrado - leitor de cartões e a pobre qualidade do som do alto falante. A câmera principal de 13 MP, que geralmente é suficiente na prática, sofre de uma forte tonalidade de cor, o que afeta a qualidade da imagem – talvez isto ainda pode ser resolvido com uma atualização do software. Um peso de quase 200 gramas (~7 oz) também é bastante para um smartphone de 5,5-polegadas.

O R7 não consegue atender todas as expectativas criadas pela boa folha de especificações – simplesmente existem muitos compromissos. No entanto, ainda é um bom pacote no geral, por um preço de cerca de 160 Euros (~$ 180).

Blackview R7 - 2016-09-05 09/05/2016 v5.1 ^(old)
Marcus Herbrich

Acabamento

84%

Teclado

68 / 75 → 91%

Mouse

88%

Conectividade

43 / 60 → 72%

Peso

88%

Bateria

89%

Pantalha

80%

Desempenho do jogos

23 / 63 → 36%

Desempenho da aplicação

39 / 70 → 56%

Temperatura

89%

Ruído

100%

Audio

50 / 91 → 55%

Camera

61%

Médio

70%

80%

Smartphone - Médio equilibrado

Price comparison

Editor of the original article: Andreas Osthoff - Managing Editor Business Laptops - 1692 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2013

contact me via: LinkedIn

Please share our article, every link counts!

> Análises e revisões de portáteis e celulares > Análises > Análises > Breve Análise do Smartphone Blackview R7

Marcus Herbrich, 2016-09-16 (Update: 2016-09-22)