Breve Análise do Smartphone CAT S42 – Smartphone robusto, emborrachado e à prova d'água
Competing Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 73 % v7 (old) | 08/2020 | CAT S42 Helio A20 MT6761D, PowerVR GE8300 | 220 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 5.50" | 1440x720 | |
| 72.9 % v7 (old) | 09/2017 | CAT S41 Helio P20 MT6757, Mali-T880 MP2 | 218 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 5.00" | 1920x1080 | |
| 75.9 % v7 (old) | 10/2019 | Gigaset GX290 Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2 | 279 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 6.10" | 1560x720 | |
| 74 % v7 (old) | 08/2019 | Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2 | 172 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 5.00" | 1280x720 | |
| 73.7 % v7 (old) | 10/2019 | Blackview BV9100 Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320 | 408 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.30" | 2340x1080 |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| CAT S42 | |
| Blackview BV9100 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| Gigaset GX290 | |
| CAT S41 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Blackview BV9100 | |
| CAT S42 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| Gigaset GX290 | |
| CAT S41 | |
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.
Main lens - flowerMain lens - surroundingsMain lens - low light
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 95 %
iluminação com acumulador: 541 cd/m²
Contraste: 1040:1 (Preto: 0.52 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.89 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 5.6 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
91.1% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.272
| CAT S42 IPS, 1440x720, 5.5" | CAT S41 IPS, 1920x1080, 5" | Gigaset GX290 IPS, 1560x720, 6.1" | Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s IPS (PLS), 1280x720, 5" | Blackview BV9100 IPS, 2340x1080, 6.3" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -10% | -17% | -7% | -8% | |
| Brightness middle | 541 | 537 -1% | 635 17% | 525 -3% | 448 -17% |
| Brightness | 532 | 506 -5% | 615 16% | 513 -4% | 432 -19% |
| Brightness Distribution | 95 | 86 -9% | 91 -4% | 90 -5% | 92 -3% |
| Black Level * | 0.52 | 0.9 -73% | 0.39 25% | 0.52 -0% | 0.34 35% |
| Contrast | 1040 | 597 -43% | 1628 57% | 1010 -3% | 1318 27% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 5.89 | 5.02 15% | 10.5 -78% | 6 -2% | 6.7 -14% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 11.35 | 7.98 30% | 17.9 -58% | 10.9 4% | 12.9 -14% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 5.6 | 5.3 5% | 11.8 -111% | 7.8 -39% | 8.7 -55% |
| Gamma | 2.272 97% | 2.154 102% | 1.86 118% | 2.53 87% | 2.15 102% |
| CCT | 7884 82% | 7226 90% | 9570 68% | 8605 76% | 8026 81% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| 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 8706 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 28 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 11 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 17 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 (20.9 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 58 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 27 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 31 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. » 94 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). | ||
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| CAT S42 | |
| CAT S41 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| Average Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D () | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| CAT S42 | |
| CAT S41 | |
| Gigaset GX290 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| Blackview BV9100 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D () | |
| GFXBench 3.0 | |
| on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
| CAT S42 | |
| CAT S41 | |
| Gigaset GX290 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| Blackview BV9100 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 166, n=173, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| CAT S42 | |
| CAT S41 | |
| Gigaset GX290 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| Blackview BV9100 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (12 - 502, n=173, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| CAT S42 | |
| CAT S41 | |
| Gigaset GX290 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| Blackview BV9100 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 166, n=173, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| CAT S42 | |
| CAT S41 | |
| Gigaset GX290 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| Blackview BV9100 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (8.3 - 365, n=173, last 2 years) | |
| AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| CAT S42 | |
| Gigaset GX290 | |
| Blackview BV9100 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D () | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=169, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s (Chrome 75) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D () | |
| CAT S42 (Chrome 80) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s (Chrome 75) | |
| CAT S41 (Chrome 67) | |
| CAT S42 (Chrome 80) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D (21.9 - 22.5, n=2) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=152, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| CAT S42 (Chome 80) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D () | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| Average Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D (26 - 27, n=2) | |
| CAT S42 (Chrome 80) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=210, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s (Chrome 75) | |
| CAT S41 (Chrome 67) | |
| CAT S42 (Chrome 80) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D (3905 - 3971, n=2) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| CAT S42 (Chrome 80) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D (11496 - 11842, n=2) | |
| CAT S41 (Chrome 67) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s (Chrome 75) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=167, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
| CAT S42 | CAT S41 | Gigaset GX290 | Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | Blackview BV9100 | Average 32 GB eMMC Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -27% | -20% | -7% | -8% | -5% | 1031% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 287.9 | 253 -12% | 275.6 -4% | 298.6 4% | 279.7 -3% | 242 ? -16% | 1894 ? 558% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 121.1 | 117.2 -3% | 33.77 -72% | 85.4 -29% | 106.2 -12% | 100.5 ? -17% | 1476 ? 1119% |
| Random Read 4KB | 51.6 | 65.5 27% | 33.33 -35% | 59.6 16% | 37.23 -28% | 43.2 ? -16% | 278 ? 439% |
| Random Write 4KB | 14.8 | 12.99 -12% | 10.95 -26% | 10.38 -30% | 14.61 -1% | 22.4 ? 51% | 312 ? 2008% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 83.1 ? | 23.87 -71% | 81.1 ? -2% | 79.6 ? -4% | 81.9 ? -1% | 71.8 ? -14% | |
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 62.5 ? | 5 -92% | 74.3 ? 19% | 64.3 ? 3% | 60.7 ? -3% | 52.9 ? -15% |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 35.9 °C / 97 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 35.6 °C / 96 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 30.2 °C / 86 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
CAT S42 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 63.4% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 63.4% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 63.4% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (121.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 89% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 2% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 97% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
CAT S41 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 61.7% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 61.7% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 61.7% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (117.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 86% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 7% 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, 2% similar, 2% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0 / 0.1 Watt |
| Ocioso |  1.5 / 2 / 3 Watt |
| Carga |
3.6 / 4.9 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| CAT S42 4200 mAh | CAT S41 5000 mAh | Gigaset GX290 6200 mAh | Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s 2800 mAh | Blackview BV9100 13000 mAh | Average Mediatek Helio A20 MT6761D | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -8% | 4% | 30% | 18% | 10% | -14% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 1.5 | 1.4 7% | 0.89 41% | 0.65 57% | 1.01 33% | 1 ? 33% | 0.883 ? 41% |
| Idle Average * | 2 | 2.2 -10% | 2.09 -5% | 1.62 19% | 2 -0% | 2 ? -0% | 1.467 ? 27% |
| Idle Maximum * | 3 | 2.8 7% | 2.15 28% | 1.66 45% | 2.01 33% | 2.85 ? 5% | 1.621 ? 46% |
| Load Average * | 3.6 | 4.1 -14% | 4.49 -25% | 3.03 16% | 2.9 19% | 3.65 ? -1% | 6.58 ? -83% |
| Load Maximum * | 4.9 | 6.4 -31% | 5.78 -18% | 4.34 11% | 4.74 3% | 4.35 ? 11% | 9.91 ? -102% |
* ... smaller is better
| CAT S42 4200 mAh | CAT S41 5000 mAh | Gigaset GX290 6200 mAh | Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s 2800 mAh | Blackview BV9100 13000 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 14% | 57% | -21% | 139% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1243 | 1199 -4% | |||
| H.264 | 902 | 598 -34% | |||
| WiFi v1.3 | 836 | 953 14% | 1316 57% | 619 -26% | 2000 139% |
| Load | 253 | 200 -21% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto - Smartphone robusto com pontos fortes e fracos
É uma jogada inteligente que a CAT tenha tornado o S42 mais econômico. Nos últimos anos, a competição no reino dos smartphones robustos aumentou e os smartphones de baixo custo tornaram-se mais poderosos. Porém, por sua vez, os usuários terão que se contentar com uma tela de alta definição e uma bateria menor.
Para aqueles que pensam que o CAT S41 é a melhor escolha, temos isto a dizer: O CAT S42 é significativamente mais barato, embora o modelo anterior tenha quase dois anos. Além disso, oferece Wi-Fi mais rápido e software moderno. No entanto, pensamos que é uma pena que os botões de navegação físicos tenham sido eliminados.
Molduras grossas em 2020 não são uma visão bonita. No entanto, o peso não é muito alto para um smartphone robusto nessa faixa de preço. Gostamos do gerenciamento de temperatura e das durações de bateria muito úteis.
Um smartphone robusto e barato com bateria de boa duração, Wi-Fi rápido, baixo nível de desempenho e câmera medíocre: O CAT S42 deixa uma impressão confusa.
O CAT S42 vale a pena para quem procura um smartphone barato que seja capaz de lidar com ambientes difíceis. No entanto, os compradores em potencial devem estar cientes do desempenho medíocre da câmera, da baixa qualidade do som e do baixo desempenho do sistema.
O fabricante deve prestar mais atenção aos patches de segurança porque eles estão desatualizados no momento desta análise. Isso é muito problemático para um dispositivo empresarial como o CAT S42.
CAT S42
- 08/11/2020 v7 (old)
Florian Schmitt
Price comparison
