Breve Análise do Smartphone Fairphone 2
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 | |
| Fairphone 2 | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| Fairphone 2 | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 92 %
iluminação com acumulador: 476 cd/m²
Contraste: 1253:1 (Preto: 0.38 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.5 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 4.2 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
Gamma: 2.54
| Fairphone 2 IPS, 1920x1080, 5" | Sony Xperia XA IPS, 1280x720, 5" | Huawei P9 IPS-NEO, JDI, 1920x1080, 5.2" | Samsung Galaxy A5 2016 Super AMOLED, 1920x1080, 5.2" | Samsung Galaxy S7 SAMOLED, 2560x1440, 5.1" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -30% | 9% | 23% | 23% | |
| Brightness middle | 476 | 518 9% | 582 22% | 378 -21% | 350 -26% |
| Brightness | 468 | 475 1% | 563 20% | 380 -19% | 351 -25% |
| Brightness Distribution | 92 | 81 -12% | 91 -1% | 91 -1% | 98 7% |
| Black Level * | 0.38 | 0.61 -61% | 0.38 -0% | ||
| Contrast | 1253 | 849 -32% | 1532 22% | ||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.5 | 6.8 -51% | 4.4 2% | 1.95 57% | 2.04 55% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 9.2 | 11.4 -24% | 7.4 20% | 3.09 66% | 3.25 65% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 4.2 | 7 -67% | 4.8 -14% | 1.86 56% | 1.63 61% |
| Gamma | 2.54 87% | 2.35 94% | 2.2 100% | 2.13 103% | 2.07 106% |
| CCT | 7296 89% | 8151 80% | 6175 105% | 6376 102% | 6391 102% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 77.78 | 86.86 | |||
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 99.44 | 99.35 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 266 Hz | ≤ 100 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 266 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 100 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 266 Hz is relatively high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. However, there are reports that some users are still sensitive to PWM at 500 Hz and above, so be aware. 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 27 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 10 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. » 64 % 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 | ||
| 51 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 26 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 25 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. » 86 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). | ||
| AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Fairphone 2 | |
| Sony Xperia XA | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2016 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 | |
| Geekbench 4.0 | |
| 64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value) | |
| Fairphone 2 | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| 64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value) | |
| Fairphone 2 | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | |
| T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Fairphone 2 | |
| Sony Xperia XA | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2016 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 | |
| 1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Fairphone 2 | |
| Sony Xperia XA | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2016 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 | |
| GFXBench 3.0 | |
| on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
| Fairphone 2 | |
| Sony Xperia XA | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2016 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 | |
| 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Fairphone 2 | |
| Sony Xperia XA | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2016 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Sony Xperia XA | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Sony Xperia XA | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 | |
| PCMark for Android - Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Fairphone 2 | |
| Sony Xperia XA | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2016 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Fairphone 2 | |
| Sony Xperia XA | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2016 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total (sort by value) | |
| Fairphone 2 | |
| Sony Xperia XA | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2016 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 | |
| WebXPRT 2015 - Overall (sort by value) | |
| Fairphone 2 | |
| Sony Xperia XA | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2016 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Fairphone 2 | |
| Sony Xperia XA | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2016 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 | |
* ... smaller is better
| Fairphone 2 | Sony Xperia XA | Huawei P9 | Samsung Galaxy A5 2016 | Samsung Galaxy S7 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 66% | 193% | 50% | 217% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 202.4 | 240.4 19% | 281.3 39% | 209.4 3% | 483.8 139% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 104.1 | 68.6 -34% | 72.2 -31% | 60.4 -42% | 145.7 40% |
| Random Read 4KB | 10.77 | 22.05 105% | 39 262% | 22.9 113% | 85.9 698% |
| Random Write 4KB | 5.01 | 10.6 112% | 47.45 847% | 11.2 124% | 16.01 220% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 39.33 | 72.9 85% | 55 40% | 72.3 84% | |
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 24.08 | 50.7 111% | 24.83 3% | 53.6 123% |
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 40.3 °C / 105 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 45.9 °C / 115 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 37.6 °C / 100 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Fairphone 2 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 35.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.9% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 37% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 55% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 57% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 36% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Sony Xperia XA audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.3% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 10.7% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (29.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 74% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 22% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 86% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 12% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2016 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 33.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.7% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (8.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 42% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 51% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 61% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 33% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0.02 / 0.1 Watt |
| Ocioso |  0.64 / 1.61 / 1.77 Watt |
| Carga |
5.02 / 6.98 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Fairphone 2 2420 mAh | Sony Xperia XA 2300 mAh | Huawei P9 3000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A5 2016 2900 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S7 3000 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 10% | -8% | 4% | 14% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.64 | 0.72 -13% | 0.77 -20% | 0.96 -50% | 0.68 -6% |
| Idle Average * | 1.61 | 1.5 7% | 2.36 -47% | 1.64 -2% | 1.02 37% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.77 | 1.57 11% | 2.37 -34% | 1.71 3% | 1.14 36% |
| Load Average * | 5.02 | 3.48 31% | 3.09 38% | 2.98 41% | 4.73 6% |
| Load Maximum * | 6.98 | 6.04 13% | 5.35 23% | 5.08 27% | 7.16 -3% |
* ... smaller is better
| Fairphone 2 2420 mAh | Sony Xperia XA 2300 mAh | Huawei P9 3000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A5 2016 2900 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S7 3000 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 20% | 81% | 169% | 114% | |
| Reader / Idle | 595 | 775 30% | 1514 154% | 2323 290% | 1810 204% |
| H.264 | 342 | 460 35% | 568 66% | 672 96% | 892 161% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 321 | 353 10% | 569 77% | 626 95% | 456 42% |
| Load | 163 | 170 4% | 206 26% | 483 196% | 242 48% |
Pro
Contra
Foram estabelecidos padrões elevados: Matérias-primas de fontes conscientes da sua responsabilidade, em vez de serem financiadas por senhores da guerra, salários justos e representantes dos trabalhadores em vez de exploração, condições de trabalho justas em vez de uma fábrica que explora seus empregados e reciclagem em vez de descarte no pátio de sucata. Deve estar claro que um smartphone produzido em condições tão justas não seria uma barganha. Com um preço de 520 Euros (~$554), o Fairphone 2 é quase o dobro de caro que muito modelos cm uma configuração similar. E ao contrário do que o preço talvez sugere, os compradores não recebem um smartphone de gama alta, mas, visto sobriamente, um aparelho de gama média baseado no Android 5.1, desempenho sólido e uma câmera decente - e não muito mais.
O Fairphone 2 está fora de todas as convenções de produção e possui um único ponto forte para suas vendas com o seu design modular. No entanto, o smartphone terá dificuldades no mercado, devido a seu preço alto.
Porém, reduzir o preço do Fairphone 2 para o desempenho disponível seria ... bom - injusto. Ao contrário dos dispositivos móveis fabricados "convencionalmente", na verdade não tem rivais e, visto estritamente, é incomparável. Finalmente os fabricantes não estão interessados em oferecer o dispositivo móvel mais barato possível. O preço assume um lugar secundário atrás da produção social e ambiental mais favorável possível. O seu preço é simplesmente uma consequência disto. E isso, mais uma vez é uma das maiores fortalezas do Fairphone 2: Ele incentiva os compradores a pensar sobre quanto dinheiro eles realmente devem gastar em um smartphone se os seres humanos e não os lucros estão no foco da cadeia de suprimentos. A resposta está diretamente incluída.
O modelo de teste vem com um recurso realmente assassino, e, assim, aumentamos a pontuação total em um ponto. O design modular mostra que os usuários podem consertar um smartphone por si mesmos, com pouco esforço e que inclusive é possível substituir o hardware ou instalar recursos melhores. Deve ser bastante óbvio que a indústria está em contra disto e deseja que os usuários comprem um smartphone completamente novo e caro, em vez de upgrades de hardware econômicos. A ideia consistente do Fairphone 2 nos convenceu, embora a decisão de compra poderia ter sido feita mais fácil. Depois de tudo, devem ser feitos compromissos em termos de configuração, que são are menores, no final.
Fairphone 2
- 11/24/2016 v5.1 (old)
Manuel Masiero
Price comparison
