Breve Análise do Smartphone CUBOT R11

Name: Cubot R11
Brand: Cubot

Cheap and shiny.

O CUBOT R11 é um dispositivo de orçamento que tem muito a oferecer. O Android puro, uma bateria removível, um scanner de digitais e câmeras duplas traseiras por menos de €100 parece uma ótima oferta. Descubra nesta análise se o CUBOT R11 está à altura das expectativas.

Florian Wimmer, 👁 Florian Schmitt, ✓ Tanja Hinum-Balaz (traduzido por Ricardo Soto), Published 08/02/2018 🇺🇸 🇩🇪 ...

Android ARM Touchscreen Smartphone

Download your licensed rating image as PNG / SVG

Cubot R11 (R Serie)

Processador

Mediatek MT6580M 4 x 1.3 GHz, Cortex-A7

Placa gráfica

ARM Mali-400 MP2

Memória

2048 MB

Pantalha

5.50 polegadas 2:1, 1440 x 720 pixel 293 PPI, Tela táctil capacitiva, IPS, Brilhante: sim

Disco rígido

16 GB eMMC Flash, 16 GB

, 12.8 GB livre

Conexões

1 USB 2.0, Conexões Audio: Conector de 3,5 mm, Card Reader: Cartões microSD de até 64 GB, 1 Leitor de Impressões Digitais, Brightness Sensor, Sensores: Acelerômetro, sensor de luz ambiente, G-sensor, sensor de digitais, sensor de proximidade

Funcionamento em rede

802.11 b/g/n (b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/), Bluetooth 4.0, GSM: 850, 900, 1,800, 1,900 MHz. UMTS: 850, 900, 1,700, 1,900, 2,100 MHz., Dual SIM, GPS

Tamanho

altura x largura x profundidade (em mm): 8.85 x 150.3 x 71.4

Bateria

10.64 Wh, 2800 mAh Lítio-Ion, removeable

Sistema Operativo

Android 8.1 Oreo

Camera

Primary Camera: 13 MPix , f/2.4, Contrast Autofocus, LED flash. 2 MP depth of field sensor
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix foco fixo, LED flash

Características adicionais

Alto falantes: Alto-falante mono no lado inferior do dispositivo, Teclado: Teclado virtual, Carregador, cabo USB, capa protetora, FM Radio, fanless

peso

166 g, Suprimento de energia: 56 g

Preço

99 Euro

Links

Cubot página inicial
Cubot Seção de notebook

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
iperf3 transmit AX12
Cubot R11 Mali-400 MP2, MT6580M, 16 GB eMMC Flash	53.3 MBit/s
Nokia 1 Mali-T720 MP2, MT6737, 8 GB eMMC Flash	51.2 MBit/s -4%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A Adreno 308, 425, 16 GB eMMC Flash	49 MBit/s -8%
Lenovo Moto E4 Mali-T720 MP2, MT6737, 16 GB eMMC Flash	46.1 MBit/s -14%
Blackview A20 Mali-400 MP2, MT6580M, 8 GB eMMC Flash	46 MBit/s -14%
iperf3 receive AX12
Cubot R11 Mali-400 MP2, MT6580M, 16 GB eMMC Flash	51.3 MBit/s
Nokia 1 Mali-T720 MP2, MT6737, 8 GB eMMC Flash	49.1 MBit/s -4%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A Adreno 308, 425, 16 GB eMMC Flash	47.1 MBit/s -8%
Blackview A20 Mali-400 MP2, MT6580M, 8 GB eMMC Flash	44.4 MBit/s -13%
Lenovo Moto E4 Mali-T720 MP2, MT6737, 16 GB eMMC Flash	43.1 MBit/s -16%

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


357 cd/m²	435 cd/m²	471 cd/m²
349 cd/m²	428 cd/m²	419 cd/m²
339 cd/m²	398 cd/m²	413 cd/m²

Distribuição do brilho

tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2

Máximo: 471 cd/m² (Nits) Médio: 401 cd/m² Minimum: 16.58 cd/m²
iluminação: 72 %
iluminação com acumulador: 428 cd/m²
Contraste: 486:1 (Preto: 0.88 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.29 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 6.9 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
89.7% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.718

	Cubot R11 IPS, 1440x720, 5.5"	Blackview A20 IPS, 960x480, 5.5"	Xiaomi Redmi 5A IPS, 1280x720, 5"	Lenovo Moto E4 IPS, 1280x720, 5"	Nokia 1 IPS, 854x480, 4.5"
Screen		-18%	20%	53%	54%
Brightness middle	428	364 -15%	503 18%	488 14%	256 -40%
Brightness	401	375 -6%	499 24%	474 18%	251 -37%
Brightness Distribution	72	90 25%	84 17%	87 21%	89 24%
Black Level *	0.88	0.71 19%	0.73 17%	0.3 66%	0.12 86%
Contrast	486	513 6%	689 42%	1627 235%	2133 339%
Colorchecker dE 2000 *	6.29	10.12 -61%	5.44 14%	5.4 14%	4.82 23%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *	13.2	19.63 -49%	10.01 24%	9 32%	11.75 11%
Greyscale dE 2000 *	6.9	11.1 -61%	6.8 1%	5.5 20%	5.2 25%
Gamma	2.718 ^81%	2.722 ^81%	2.451 ^90%	2.27 ^97%	2.3 ^96%
CCT	7296 ^89%	10121 ^64%	6590 ^99%	7397 ^88%	7107 ^91%

* ... smaller is better

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.

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	↗ 15 ms rise
28 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 13 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
42 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 21 ms rise
42 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 21 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. » 64 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms).

AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Cubot R11	23275 Points
Blackview A20	24802 Points +7%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A	36883 Points +58%
Lenovo Moto E4	30856 Points +33%
Nokia 1	Points -100%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (15185 - 25237, n=10)	22450 Points -4%

AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Cubot R11	19465 Points
Blackview A20	19581 Points +1%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A	43861 Points +125%
Nokia 1	Points -100%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (17073 - 21088, n=4)	19302 Points -1%

PCMark for Android - Work performance score (sort by value)
Cubot R11	2516 Points
Blackview A20	2696 Points +7%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A	4559 Points +81%
Lenovo Moto E4	3518 Points +40%
Nokia 1	3054 Points +21%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (2516 - 3041, n=12)	2715 Points +8%

BaseMark OS II
Overall (sort by value)
Cubot R11	144 Points
Blackview A20	418 Points +190%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A	774 Points +438%
Lenovo Moto E4	531 Points +269%
Nokia 1	457 Points +217%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (144 - 432, n=11)	328 Points +128%
Average of class Smartphone (1196 - 11976, n=152, last 2 years)	6257 Points +4245%
System (sort by value)
Cubot R11	958 Points
Blackview A20	969 Points +1%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A	1463 Points +53%
Lenovo Moto E4	1077 Points +12%
Nokia 1	859 Points -10%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (957 - 1011, n=11)	978 Points +2%
Average of class Smartphone (2368 - 16475, n=152, last 2 years)	10131 Points +958%
Memory (sort by value)
Cubot R11	346 Points
Blackview A20	376 Points +9%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A	762 Points +120%
Lenovo Moto E4	576 Points +66%
Nokia 1	505 Points +46%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (189 - 404, n=11)	326 Points -6%
Average of class Smartphone (962 - 12716, n=152, last 2 years)	6714 Points +1840%
Graphics (sort by value)
Cubot R11	136 Points
Blackview A20	145 Points +7%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A	444 Points +226%
Lenovo Moto E4	208 Points +53%
Nokia 1	176 Points +29%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (136 - 145, n=11)	140.5 Points +3%
Average of class Smartphone (1017 - 58651, n=152, last 2 years)	16761 Points +12224%
Web (sort by value)
Cubot R11	10 Points
Blackview A20	580 Points +5700%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A	723 Points +7130%
Lenovo Moto E4	617 Points +6070%
Nokia 1	571 Points +5610%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (9 - 640, n=11)	421 Points +4110%
Average of class Smartphone (841 - 2145, n=152, last 2 years)	1557 Points +15470%

Geekbench 4.4
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Cubot R11	394 Points
Blackview A20	427 Points +8%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A	681 Points +73%
Lenovo Moto E4	530 Points +35%
Nokia 1	492 Points +25%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (394 - 437, n=6)	421 Points +7%
Average of class Smartphone (844 - 9574, n=82, last 2 years)	5422 Points +1276%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Cubot R11	1131 Points
Blackview A20	1160 Points +3%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A	1874 Points +66%
Lenovo Moto E4	1532 Points +35%
Nokia 1	1252 Points +11%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (1131 - 1237, n=6)	1167 Points +3%
Average of class Smartphone (2630 - 30323, n=82, last 2 years)	14892 Points +1217%
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Cubot R11	836 Points
Blackview A20	858 Points +3%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A	1333 Points +59%
Lenovo Moto E4	938 Points +12%
Nokia 1	943 Points +13%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (773 - 875, n=5)	842 Points +1%
Average of class Smartphone (5192 - 18534, n=57, last 2 years)	11924 Points +1326%

3DMark
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Cubot R11	2863 Points
Blackview A20	2924 Points +2%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A	6186 Points +116%
Lenovo Moto E4	3671 Points +28%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (2841 - 2946, n=12)	2912 Points +2%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Cubot R11	2433 Points
Blackview A20	2470 Points +2%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A	5532 Points +127%
Lenovo Moto E4	3168 Points +30%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (2396 - 2485, n=12)	2464 Points +1%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Cubot R11	7498 Points
Blackview A20	8200 Points +9%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A	10556 Points +41%
Lenovo Moto E4	8266 Points +10%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (7498 - 8913, n=12)	8034 Points +7%

GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value)
Cubot R11	6.9 fps
Blackview A20	10 fps +45%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A	14 fps +103%
Lenovo Moto E4	11 fps +59%
Nokia 1	14 fps +103%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (4.4 - 12, n=12)	8.74 fps +27%
Average of class Smartphone (23 - 165, n=170, last 2 years)	85.7 fps +1142%
1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value)
Cubot R11	4.1 fps
Blackview A20	4.4 fps +7%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A	7.7 fps +88%
Lenovo Moto E4	6 fps +46%
Nokia 1	5.1 fps +24%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (4.1 - 11, n=12)	4.89 fps +19%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 791, n=170, last 2 years)	279 fps +6705%

Legend

Cubot R11 Mediatek MT6580M, ARM Mali-400 MP2, 16 GB eMMC Flash

Blackview A20 Mediatek MT6580M, ARM Mali-400 MP2, 8 GB eMMC Flash

Xiaomi Redmi 5A Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Qualcomm Adreno 308, 16 GB eMMC Flash

Lenovo Moto E4 Mediatek MT6737, ARM Mali-T720 MP2, 16 GB eMMC Flash

Nokia 1 Mediatek MT6737, ARM Mali-T720 MP2, 8 GB eMMC Flash

Average Mediatek MT6580M

Average of class Smartphone

JetStream 1.1 | Octane V2 | Mozilla Kraken 1.1

JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Xiaomi Redmi 5A (Chrome 67)	17.93 Points +48%
Lenovo Moto E4 (Chrome 60)	14.57 Points +20%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (10.8 - 14.5, n=10)	13.2 Points +9%
Cubot R11 (Chrome 67)	12.12 Points
Nokia 1 (Chrome 66)	11.55 Points -5%
Blackview A20 (Chrome 67)	11.35 Points -6%

Octane V2 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=204, last 2 years)	36733 Points +1613%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A (Chrome 67)	3224 Points +50%
Lenovo Moto E4 (Chrome 60)	2270 Points +6%
Cubot R11 (Chrome 67)	2144 Points
Average Mediatek MT6580M (1645 - 2280, n=10)	2066 Points -4%
Nokia 1 (Chrome 66)	1907 Points -11%
Blackview A20 (Chrome 67)	1769 Points -17%

Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total
Cubot R11 (Chrome 67)	21257 ms *
Blackview A20 (Chrome 67)	19213 ms * +10%
Nokia 1 (Chrome 66)	18927 ms * +11%
Lenovo Moto E4 (Chrome 60)	17185 ms * +19%
Average Mediatek MT6580M (14579 - 21257, n=11)	16993 ms * +20%
Xiaomi Redmi 5A (Chrome 67)	13112 ms * +38%
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=161, last 2 years)	1583 ms * +93%

* ... smaller is better

	Cubot R11	Blackview A20	Xiaomi Redmi 5A	Lenovo Moto E4	Nokia 1	Average 16 GB eMMC Flash	Average of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5		-12%	293%	215%	13%	158%	1955%
Sequential Read 256KB	135.8	90.2 -34%	293.8 116%	187.6 38%	208.3 53%	164.5 ?(9.66 - 294, n=256) 21%	1834 ?(226 - 4512, n=193, last 2 years) 1251%
Sequential Write 256KB	52	8 -85%	49.86 -4%	45.3 -13%	51.8 0%	43 ?(8.74 - 106.3, n=256) -17%	1426 ?(57.5 - 3908, n=193, last 2 years) 2642%
Random Read 4KB	22.1	11.3 -49%	42.32 91%	18.7 -15%	25.7 16%	21.7 ?(2.49 - 62.1, n=256) -2%	278 ?(22.2 - 543, n=193, last 2 years) 1158%
Random Write 4KB	10.8	3.4 -69%	9.28 -14%	29.2 170%	9.1 -16%	8.08 ?(0.49 - 44.9, n=256) -25%	310 ?(9.4 - 753, n=193, last 2 years) 2770%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard	10.8 ?(Kingston 32GB)	20.6 ?(Kingston 32GB) 91%	84.9 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 686%	65.4 506%		59.1 ?(8.1 - 87.7, n=137) 447%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard	6.38 ?(Kingston 32GB)	11.2 ?(Kingston 32GB) 76%	62.6 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 881%	44.9 604%		39.8 ?(6.38 - 65.8, n=137) 524%

Carga Máxima

Inatividade


39.5 °C	32.8 °C	31.8 °C
41.2 °C	32.7 °C	32.8 °C
39.7 °C	32.7 °C	32.1 °C

Máximo: 41.2 °C
Médio: 35 °C


31.9 °C	32.8 °C	39.5 °C
32.1 °C	32.5 °C	40.3 °C
32.1 °C	33.2 °C	39.1 °C

Máximo: 40.3 °C
Médio: 34.8 °C

alimentação elétrica 39.5 °C | Temperatura do quarto 22 °C | Voltcraft IR-260

(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 35 °C / 95 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 41.2 °C / 106 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 40.3 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.7 °C / 85 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.

Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)

Cubot R11 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (78 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 57.8% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 57.8% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 57.8% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (119.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 87% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% 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%

Xiaomi Redmi 5A audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (77.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 31.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.1% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (28.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 71% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 24% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 84% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 13% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Consumo de energia

desligado	0 / 0.1 Watt
Ocioso	0.9 / 1.5 / 2.2 Watt
Carga	4.6 / 6 Watt


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

	Cubot R11 2800 mAh	Blackview A20 3000 mAh	Xiaomi Redmi 5A 3000 mAh	Lenovo Moto E4 2800 mAh	Nokia 1 2150 mAh	Average Mediatek MT6580M	Average of class Smartphone
Power Consumption		-8%	8%	2%	12%	0%	-13%
Idle Minimum *	0.9	1.1 -22%	1.2 -33%	0.87 3%	0.9 -0%	0.805 ?(0.56 - 1.1, n=11) 11%	0.895 ?(0.4 - 2.37, n=153, last 2 years) 1%
Idle Average *	1.5	1.5 -0%	1.5 -0%	2.38 -59%	1.5 -0%	1.736 ?(1.36 - 2.26, n=11) -16%	1.447 ?(0.6 - 4.26, n=153, last 2 years) 4%
Idle Maximum *	2.2	2.3 -5%	1.8 18%	2.47 -12%	2 9%	2.1 ?(1.38 - 2.39, n=11) 5%	1.608 ?(0.83 - 4.45, n=153, last 2 years) 27%
Load Average *	4.6	4.8 -4%	2.9 37%	2.63 43%	3.5 24%	4.82 ?(3.11 - 6.97, n=11) -5%	6.41 ?(2.3 - 16.5, n=148, last 2 years) -39%
Load Maximum *	6	6.5 -8%	4.8 20%	3.86 36%	4.3 28%	5.68 ?(3.59 - 7.03, n=11) 5%	9.61 ?(3.53 - 20.8, n=148, last 2 years) -60%

* ... smaller is better

Tempo de Execução da Bateria


WiFi Websurfing		10h 33min

	Cubot R11 2800 mAh	Blackview A20 3000 mAh	Xiaomi Redmi 5A 3000 mAh	Lenovo Moto E4 2800 mAh	Nokia 1 2150 mAh
Battery Runtime		-12%	59%	-18%	-13%
WiFi v1.3	633	556 -12%	1009 59%	522 -18%	552 -13%
Reader / Idle				1302
H.264				608
Load				316

Pro

+ Carcaça estável

+ Longa duração da bateria

+ Bateria removível

Contra

- Desempenho pobre

- Alto-falante fraco

- Tela de baixo contraste

- Sem garantia da fabricante

O CUBOT R11 é um dispositivo de menos de €100 que impressiona com sua carcaça robusta e longa duração da bateria. No entanto, agora há muitos dispositivos com preços semelhantes que oferecem mais potência, melhores câmeras e suporte para LTE. No lado positivo, o CUBOT R11 tem uma bateria substituível, uma relação de aspecto de 2:1 e dimensões compactas, a última das quais beneficiará aqueles com mãos menores.

O CUBOT R11 é um smartphone de baixo custo que tem boa duração de bateria, uma bateria substituível e uma carcaça robusta. No entanto, um SoC mais poderoso teria feito maravilhas.

No geral, o CUBOT R11 é um típico smartphone de nível básico que se sai bem em algumas áreas, mas em outras nem tanto.

Cubot R11 - 2018-07-26 07/26/2018 v6 ^(old)
Florian Wimmer

Acabamento

70%

Teclado

65 / 75 → 87%

Mouse

79%

Conectividade

32 / 60 → 53%

Peso

91%

Bateria

93%

Pantalha

77%

Desempenho do jogos

4 / 63 → 7%

Desempenho da aplicação

21 / 70 → 30%

Temperatura

89%

Ruído

100%

Audio

47 / 91 → 52%

Camera

45%

Médio

63%

74%

Smartphone - Médio equilibrado

Price comparison

Editor of the original article: Alex Alderson - Senior Tech Writer - 11135 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2018

contact me via: @aldersonaj

Please share our article, every link counts!

> Análises e revisões de portáteis e celulares > Análises > Análises > Breve Análise do Smartphone CUBOT R11

Florian Wimmer, 2018-08- 2 (Update: 2018-08- 5)

Size Comparison

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

Display Response Times

Cubot R11 audio analysis

Xiaomi Redmi 5A audio analysis

Pro

Contra

More articles related to this device

Price comparison