Breve Análise do Smartphone Google Pixel 4a: Não se trata de megapixels
Comparison devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 83.6 % v7 (old) | 09/2020 | Google Pixel 4a SD 730G, Adreno 618 | 143 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 5.80" | 2340x1080 | |
| 85.2 % v7 (old) | 05/2020 | Apple iPhone SE 2020 A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU | 148 g | 128 GB NVMe | 4.70" | 1334x750 | |
| 78.6 % v7 (old) | 05/2020 | Sony Xperia 10 II SD 665, Adreno 610 | 151 g | 128 GB eMMC Flash | 6.00" | 2520x1080 | |
| 79.8 % v7 (old) | 07/2020 | Samsung Galaxy M31 Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3 | 191 g | 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.40" | 2340x1080 | |
| 82.9 % v7 (old) | 08/2020 | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite SD 730G, Adreno 618 | 204 g | 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.47" | 2340x1080 |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Apple iPhone SE 2020 | |
| Google Pixel 4a | |
| Sony Xperia 10 II | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Google Pixel 4a | |
| Apple iPhone SE 2020 | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 | |
| Sony Xperia 10 II | |
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 camera (rabbit)Main camera (flower)Zoom (5x)Low light
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 96 %
iluminação com acumulador: 705 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 0.9 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 1.3 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
95.3% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.26
| Google Pixel 4a OLED, 2340x1080, 5.8" | Apple iPhone SE 2020 IPS, 1334x750, 4.7" | Sony Xperia 10 II OLED, 2520x1080, 6" | Samsung Galaxy M31 Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.5" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -12% | -46% | -85% | -3% | |
| Brightness middle | 705 | 688 -2% | 591 -16% | 622 -12% | 605 -14% |
| Brightness | 707 | 659 -7% | 590 -17% | 615 -13% | 608 -14% |
| Brightness Distribution | 96 | 92 -4% | 97 1% | 97 1% | 95 -1% |
| Black Level * | 0.28 | ||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 0.9 | 1 -11% | 1.42 -58% | 2.25 -150% | 0.84 7% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 1.9 | 2.2 -16% | 3.83 -102% | 6.22 -227% | 1.8 5% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1.3 | 1.7 -31% | 2.4 -85% | 2.7 -108% | 1.3 -0% |
| Gamma | 2.26 97% | 2.25 98% | 2.215 99% | 2.019 109% | 2.211 100% |
| CCT | 6576 99% | 6790 96% | 9014 72% | 6810 95% | 6310 103% |
| Contrast | 2457 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 255.1 Hz | ≤ 99 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 255.1 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 255.1 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 8743 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 1.6 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 (21 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 8.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 4.4 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 4.4 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 18 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). | ||
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Google Pixel 4a | |
| Sony Xperia 10 II | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (8941 - 10200, n=7) | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| Google Pixel 4a | |
| Sony Xperia 10 II | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (7134 - 8683, n=7) | |
| AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Google Pixel 4a | |
| Apple iPhone SE 2020 | |
| Sony Xperia 10 II | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (251673 - 275660, n=6) | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone SE 2020 (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=161, last 2 years) | |
| Google Pixel 4a (Chrome 85) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (45.8 - 50.6, n=6) | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite (Chrome 83.0.4103.106) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 (Chrome 83) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone SE 2020 (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
| Google Pixel 4a (Chrome 85) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (79.2 - 87.7, n=6) | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite (Chrome 83.0.4103.106) | |
| Sony Xperia 10 II (Chrome 84) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 (Chrome 83) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Apple iPhone SE 2020 (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=146, last 2 years) | |
| Google Pixel 4a (Chrome 85) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (40.4 - 44.2, n=6) | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite (Chrome 83.0.4103.106) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 (Chome 83) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
| Apple iPhone SE 2020 (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
| Google Pixel 4a (Chrome 85) | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite (Chrome 83.0.4103.106) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (66 - 77, n=6) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 (Chrome 83) | |
| Sony Xperia 10 II (Chrome 84) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone SE 2020 (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=203, last 2 years) | |
| Google Pixel 4a (Chrome 85) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (16197 - 17768, n=6) | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite (Chrome 83.0.4103.106) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 (Chrome 83) | |
| Sony Xperia 10 II (Chrome 84) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Samsung Galaxy M31 (Chrome 83) | |
| Sony Xperia 10 II (Chrome 84) | |
| Google Pixel 4a (Chrome 85) | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite (Chrome 83.0.4103.106) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (2770 - 3054, n=6) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=160, last 2 years) | |
| Apple iPhone SE 2020 (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Google Pixel 4a | Sony Xperia 10 II | Samsung Galaxy M31 | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite | Average 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -47% | -13% | -16% | -19% | 220% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 502 | 293.5 -42% | 489.5 -2% | 501 0% | 530 ? 6% | 1839 ? 266% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 246.8 | 188.2 -24% | 221.7 -10% | 213.2 -14% | 212 ? -14% | 1425 ? 477% |
| Random Read 4KB | 162.9 | 76.8 -53% | 128.9 -21% | 134.6 -17% | 130.6 ? -20% | 277 ? 70% |
| Random Write 4KB | 187.4 | 56.7 -70% | 152.4 -19% | 125.8 -33% | 101.2 ? -46% | 309 ? 65% |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 38.2 °C / 101 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 37.1 °C / 99 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.4 °C / 80 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Google Pixel 4a audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (15.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 2% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 96% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 19% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 77% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Apple iPhone SE 2020 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 6.3% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.4% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 44% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 49% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 63% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 31% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0.01 / 0.21 Watt |
| Ocioso |  0.49 / 0.96 / 1 Watt |
| Carga |
3.11 / 5.23 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Google Pixel 4a 3140 mAh | Apple iPhone SE 2020 1822 mAh | Sony Xperia 10 II 3600 mAh | Samsung Galaxy M31 6000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite 5260 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -14% | -118% | -166% | -39% | -74% | -78% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.49 | 0.44 10% | 1.5 -206% | 1.6 -227% | 0.8 -63% | 0.84 ? -71% | 0.894 ? -82% |
| Idle Average * | 0.96 | 1.56 -63% | 2.1 -119% | 2.3 -140% | 1.1 -15% | 1.953 ? -103% | 1.456 ? -52% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1 | 1.63 -63% | 2.8 -180% | 3.7 -270% | 1.8 -80% | 2.26 ? -126% | 1.616 ? -62% |
| Load Average * | 3.11 | 2.32 25% | 4.5 -45% | 6.7 -115% | 3.7 -19% | 4.51 ? -45% | 6.45 ? -107% |
| Load Maximum * | 5.23 | 4.12 21% | 7.2 -38% | 9.4 -80% | 6.1 -17% | 6.63 ? -27% | 9.8 ? -87% |
* ... smaller is better
| Google Pixel 4a 3140 mAh | Apple iPhone SE 2020 1822 mAh | Sony Xperia 10 II 3600 mAh | Samsung Galaxy M31 6000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite 5260 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -21% | 11% | 47% | 36% | |
| Reader / Idle | 2270 | 1938 -15% | 2456 8% | 2249 -1% | |
| H.264 | 1045 | 681 -35% | 1432 37% | 1370 31% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 669 | 694 4% | 743 11% | 1324 98% | 1095 64% |
| Load | 225 | 143 -36% | 326 45% | 337 50% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto - O rei da gama média
Com o Pixel 4a, a Google consegue criar um smartphone adequado que tem muitos pontos fortes e apenas pequenos pontos fracos. Tanto o desempenho do sistema quanto da bateria são bons para um smartphone de gama média, e os 128 GB de espaço de armazenamento interno fazem com que a falta de um slot para cartão microSD não seja um grande problema. Além disso, o desempenho da câmera está quase no mesmo nível dos "grandes" dispositivos Pixel 4 e é incomparável nesta faixa de preço. O tamanho da tela de "apenas" 5,8 polegadas também o torna um dos smartphones mais compactos disponíveis atualmente.
O Pixel 4a é um smartphone barato da Google que deve agradar principalmente aos fãs de pequenos smartphones.
O Pixel 4a também merece um ponto positivo por sua tela muito brilhante. Graças ao seu painel OLED, também oferece cores vivas e uma relação de contraste de primeira classe. No entanto, usuários com olhos sensíveis notarão a ampla faixa de frequência em que a tela cintila. De um ponto de vista totalmente subjetivo, no entanto, o autor dessas linhas já usou smartphones que colocam mais pressão sobre os olhos do que no Pixel 4a apesar da cintilação em frequências significativamente mais altas. No final, apenas a tentativa e erro podem ajudá-lo nesse aspecto.
Google Pixel 4a
- 08/31/2022 v7 (old)
Mike Wobker
Price comparison
