Breve Análise do Smartphone HTC One A9s

Name: HTC One A9s
Brand: HTC

Algo novo do leste? O One A9s do fabricante taiwanês HTC é o sucessor do One A9, muito mais acessível, que analisamos o ano passado. Vamos descobrir o que mudou em comparação com o modelo anterior.

Florian Wimmer, ✓ Manuel Masiero (traduzido por Ricardo Soto), Published 01/03/2017 🇺🇸 🇩🇪 ...

Android ARM Smartphone Touchscreen

Test device courtesy of HTC Deutschland

Download your licensed rating image as PNG / SVG

HTC One A9s (One Serie)

Processador

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

Placa gráfica

ARM Mali-T860 MP2

Memória

3 GB

Pantalha

5.00 polegadas 16:9, 1280 x 720 pixel 294 PPI, Tela táctil capacitiva, IPS, Gorilla Glass, Brilhante: sim

Disco rígido

32 GB eMMC Flash, 32 GB

, 17.7 GB livre

Conexões

1 USB 2.0, Card Reader: microSD de até 2TB, 1 Leitor de Impressões Digitais, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensores: Acelerômetro, Sensor de luz, Sensor de proximidade, Bússola

Funcionamento em rede

802.11a/b/g/n (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/), Bluetooth 4.2, GSM (850/900/1800/1900), UMTS (850/900/1900/2100), LTE (B1/B3/B7/B8/B20); Bandwidth (Download/Upload): 300Mbps/50Mbps (LTE), 42Mbps/5.76Mbps (UMTS); SAR: 0.49 W/kg (head), LTE, GPS

Tamanho

altura x largura x profundidade (em mm): 8 x 146.5 x 71.5

Bateria

8.7 Wh, 2300 mAh Lítio-Ion, Tempo de conversação 3G (de acordo com o fabricante): 13 h, Standby 3G (de acordo com o fabricante): 432 h

Sistema Operativo

Android 6.0 Marshmallow

Camera

Primary Camera: 13 MPix ƒ/2.2 aperture, 28x3 mm focal length (74.4° wide angle), AF, LED flash, Videos @1080p/30fps
Secondary Camera: 5 MPix ƒ/2.8 Blende und 33.7 mm Brennweite (65.3° Weitwinkel), Videos @1080p/30fps

Características adicionais

Alto falantes: Lautsprecher an der Unterkante, Teclado: Teclado virtual, Adaptador de força, cabo USB, headset, Boost+, News Republic, 24 Meses Garantia, Rádio FM, fanless

peso

150 g, Suprimento de energia: 49 g

Preço

299 Euro

Links

HTC 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
iperf3 transmit AX12
Apple iPhone 7 A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe (Klaus I211)	485 MBit/s +345%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash	335 MBit/s +207%
HTC One A9s Mali-T860 MP2, Helio P10 MT6755, 32 GB eMMC Flash	109 MBit/s
HTC Desire 10 Lifestyle Adreno 305, 400 MSM8928, 32 GB eMMC Flash	104 MBit/s -5%
iperf3 receive AX12
Apple iPhone 7 A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe (Klaus I211)	532 MBit/s +422%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash	281 MBit/s +175%
HTC One A9s Mali-T860 MP2, Helio P10 MT6755, 32 GB eMMC Flash	102 MBit/s
HTC Desire 10 Lifestyle Adreno 305, 400 MSM8928, 32 GB eMMC Flash	101 MBit/s -1%

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


296 cd/m²	335 cd/m²	310 cd/m²
306 cd/m²	348 cd/m²	310 cd/m²
304 cd/m²	348 cd/m²	321 cd/m²

Distribuição do brilho

tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2

Máximo: 348 cd/m² (Nits) Médio: 319.8 cd/m² Minimum: 10.4 cd/m²
iluminação: 85 %
iluminação com acumulador: 348 cd/m²
Contraste: 1513:1 (Preto: 0.23 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.5 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 4 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
95.1% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.3

	HTC One A9s IPS, 1280x720, 5"	OnePlus 2 IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5"	Lenovo ZUK Z2 IPS, 1920x1080, 5"	Gigaset ME IPS, 1920x1080, 5"	Samsung Galaxy A5 2016 Super AMOLED, 1920x1080, 5.2"	HTC One A9 AMOLED, 1920x1080, 5"
Screen		5%	-18%	-10%	31%	24%
Brightness middle	348	451 30%	512 47%	445 28%	378 9%	346 -1%
Brightness	320	446 39%	502 57%	456 43%	380 19%	349 9%
Brightness Distribution	85	90 6%	84 -1%	93 9%	91 7%	93 9%
Black Level *	0.23	0.3 -30%	0.58 -152%	0.38 -65%
Contrast	1513	1503 -1%	883 -42%	1171 -23%
Colorchecker dE 2000 *	3.5	3.84 -10%	3.8 -9%	4.29 -23%	1.95 44%	1.55 56%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *	6.4		11.2 -75%	7.89 -23%	3.09 52%
Greyscale dE 2000 *	4	3.97 1%	2.7 32%	4.97 -24%	1.86 53%	2.05 49%
Gamma	2.3 ^96%	2.46 ^89%	2.09 ^105%	2.57 ^86%	2.13 ^103%	2.15 ^102%
CCT	6527 ^100%	7283 ^89%	6076 ^107%	7625 ^85%	6376 ^102%	6267 ^104%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)		58.07
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)		90.14

* ... 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 8719 (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
26 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 5 ms rise
26 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 21 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. » 59 % 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
30 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 13 ms rise
30 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 17 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. » 36 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms).

AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	51330 Points
OnePlus 2	65936 Points +28%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	122513 Points +139%
Gigaset ME	54213 Points +6%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2016	41676 Points -19%

Geekbench 4.0
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	711 Points
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	2936 Points

3DMark
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	10766 Points
OnePlus 2	22400 Points +108%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	29241 Points +172%
Gigaset ME	19445 Points +81%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2016	7903 Points -27%
HTC One A9	9163 Points -15%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	10453 Points
OnePlus 2	31858 Points +205%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	32997 Points +216%
Gigaset ME	25016 Points +139%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2016	7542 Points -28%
HTC One A9	9015 Points -14%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	12025 Points
OnePlus 2	10985 Points -9%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	20910 Points +74%
Gigaset ME	10927 Points -9%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2016	9495 Points -21%
HTC One A9	9423 Points -22%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	603 Points
OnePlus 2	1734 Points +188%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	3302 Points +448%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2016	336 Points -44%
HTC One A9	680 Points +13%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	524 Points
OnePlus 2	1854 Points +254%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	4506 Points +760%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2016	275 Points -48%
HTC One A9	618 Points +18%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	1269 Points
OnePlus 2	1414 Points +11%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	1706 Points +34%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2016	1479 Points +17%
HTC One A9	1051 Points -17%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	425 Points
OnePlus 2	938 Points +121%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	2419 Points +469%
Gigaset ME	1093 Points +157%
HTC One A9	385 Points -9%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	359 Points
OnePlus 2	846 Points +136%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	2792 Points +678%
Gigaset ME	1027 Points +186%
HTC One A9	326 Points -9%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	1175 Points
OnePlus 2	1517 Points +29%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	1648 Points +40%
Gigaset ME	1408 Points +20%
HTC One A9	1060 Points -10%

GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	27 fps
OnePlus 2	47 fps +74%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	60 fps +122%
Gigaset ME	50 fps +85%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2016	14 fps -48%
HTC One A9	16 fps -41%
1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	18 fps
OnePlus 2	48 fps +167%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	91 fps +406%
Gigaset ME	51 fps +183%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2016	14 fps -22%
HTC One A9	16 fps -11%

GFXBench 3.0
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	14 fps
OnePlus 2	23 fps +64%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	43 fps +207%
Gigaset ME	25 fps +79%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2016	3.8 fps -73%
HTC One A9	6.7 fps -52%
1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	7.2 fps
OnePlus 2	23 fps +219%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	44 fps +511%
Gigaset ME	24 fps +233%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2016	3.8 fps -47%
HTC One A9	6.4 fps -11%

GFXBench 3.1
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	11 fps
OnePlus 2	19 fps +73%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	29 fps +164%
Gigaset ME	18 fps +64%
HTC One A9	4 fps -64%
1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	2.6 fps
OnePlus 2	19 fps +631%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	30 fps +1054%
Gigaset ME	17 fps +554%
HTC One A9	3.8 fps +46%

PCMark for Android - Work performance score (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	3350 Points
OnePlus 2	4282 Points +28%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	6969 Points +108%
Gigaset ME	4544 Points +36%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2016	4008 Points +20%
HTC One A9	4293 Points +28%

Legend

HTC One A9s Mediatek Helio P10 MT6755, ARM Mali-T860 MP2, 32 GB eMMC Flash

OnePlus 2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 810 MSM8994, Qualcomm Adreno 430, 64 GB eMMC Flash

Lenovo ZUK Z2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 MSM8996, Qualcomm Adreno 530, 64 GB eMMC Flash

Gigaset ME Qualcomm Snapdragon 810 MSM8994, Qualcomm Adreno 430, 32 GB eMMC Flash

Samsung Galaxy A5 2016 Samsung Exynos 7580 Octa, ARM Mali-T720 MP2, 16 GB eMMC Flash

HTC One A9 Qualcomm Snapdragon 617 MSM8952, Qualcomm Adreno 405, 16 GB eMMC Flash

Octane V2 | Mozilla Kraken 1.1 | WebXPRT 2015 | JetStream 1.1

Octane V2 - Total Score (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	4395 Points
OnePlus 2	6955 Points +58%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	8436 Points +92%
Gigaset ME	7109 Points +62%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2016	3611 Points -18%
HTC One A9	3911 Points -11%

Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	9346 ms *
OnePlus 2	6585 ms * +30%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	3290 ms * +65%
Gigaset ME	7670 ms * +18%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2016	11887 ms * -27%
HTC One A9	11054 ms * -18%

WebXPRT 2015 - Overall (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	69 Points
OnePlus 2	80 Points +16%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2016	64 Points -7%
HTC One A9	69 Points 0%

JetStream 1.1 - Total Score (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	27.48 Points
OnePlus 2	44.29 Points +61%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	51.7 Points +88%
Gigaset ME	28.48 Points +4%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2016	22 Points -20%
HTC One A9	24.79 Points -10%

* ... smaller is better

AndroBench 3-5
Sequential Read 256KB (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	210.2 MB/s
OnePlus 2	234.2 MB/s +11%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	239.4 MB/s +14%
Gigaset ME	232 MB/s +10%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2016	209.4 MB/s 0%
HTC One A9	187.6 MB/s -11%
Sequential Write 256KB (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	68.6 MB/s
OnePlus 2	125.5 MB/s +83%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	46.52 MB/s -32%
Gigaset ME	131 MB/s +91%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2016	60.4 MB/s -12%
HTC One A9	39.61 MB/s -42%
Random Read 4KB (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	21.3 MB/s
OnePlus 2	21.87 MB/s +3%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	21.27 MB/s 0%
Gigaset ME	22 MB/s +3%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2016	22.9 MB/s +8%
HTC One A9	10 MB/s -53%
Random Write 4KB (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	34.6 MB/s
OnePlus 2	13.94 MB/s -60%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	5.64 MB/s -84%
Gigaset ME	15 MB/s -57%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2016	11.2 MB/s -68%
HTC One A9	3.61 MB/s -90%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	39.6 MB/s
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard (sort by value)
HTC One A9s	25.6 MB/s

Asphalt 8: Airborne
	Configurações	Valor
	high	29 fps
	very low	30 fps

... comparado com

Dead Trigger 2
	Configurações	Valor
	high	58 fps

... comparado com

Carga Máxima

Inatividade


32.5 °C	31.4 °C	32.3 °C
32.9 °C	31.4 °C	33.5 °C
32.4 °C	30.9 °C	32.3 °C

Máximo: 33.5 °C
Médio: 32.2 °C


30.5 °C	31.4 °C	30.9 °C
30.8 °C	31.8 °C	32.1 °C
30.9 °C	31.9 °C	32.3 °C

Máximo: 32.3 °C
Médio: 31.4 °C

alimentação elétrica 32.2 °C | Temperatura do quarto 22.2 °C | Voltcraft IR-350

(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 32.2 °C / 90 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 33.5 °C / 92 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 32.3 °C / 90 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 30.1 °C / 86 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.

HTC One A9s audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 18.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.4% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 11.7% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (8.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (28.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 72% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 23% 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%

Apple iPhone 7 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.3% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.9% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (8.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 34% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 58% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 53% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 39% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Consumo de energia

desligado	0.1 / 0.18 Watt
Ocioso	1.29 / 2.28 / 2.52 Watt
Carga	4.06 / 5.91 Watt


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

	HTC One A9s 2300 mAh	OnePlus 2 mAh	Lenovo ZUK Z2 3500 mAh	Gigaset ME 3000 mAh	Samsung Galaxy A5 2016 2900 mAh	HTC One A9 mAh
Power Consumption		13%	-4%	-20%	25%	25%
Idle Minimum *	1.29	0.6 53%	1.31 -2%	0.75 42%	0.96 26%	0.9 30%
Idle Average *	2.28	1.7 25%	2.03 11%	1.7 25%	1.64 28%	1.2 47%
Idle Maximum *	2.52	1.8 29%	2.08 17%	1.84 27%	1.71 32%	1.4 44%
Load Average *	4.06	5.7 -40%	5.45 -34%	7.18 -77%	2.98 27%	3.8 6%
Load Maximum *	5.91	6 -2%	6.75 -14%	12.75 -116%	5.08 14%	5.9 -0%

* ... smaller is better

Tempo de Execução da Bateria

Ocioso (sem WLAN, min brilho)		25h 43min
WiFi Websurfing		8h 37min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p		9h 47min
Carga (máximo brilho)		4h 05min

	HTC One A9s 2300 mAh	OnePlus 2 mAh	Lenovo ZUK Z2 3500 mAh	Gigaset ME 3000 mAh	Samsung Galaxy A5 2016 2900 mAh	HTC One A9 mAh
Battery Runtime		-12%	6%	-45%	46%	-26%
Reader / Idle	1543	1393 -10%			2323 51%	1154 -25%
H.264	587	580 -1%			672 14%	465 -21%
WiFi v1.3	517	356 -31%	546 6%	393 -24%	626 21%	368 -29%
Load	245	229 -7%		83 -66%	483 97%	176 -28%

Pro

+ Chassi metálico sofisticado

+ Tela de alto contraste com cores precisas

+ Boas fotos da câmera, bons vídeos

+ Durações úteis na prática

+ Modos de economia de energia e carga rápida

+ Dispositivos de entrada precisos

+ Baixas temperaturas

Contra

- Chassi pode ranger sob pressão

- Queda de conexão ocasional em redes wireless

- Tela escura com baixa resolução

- Alto falante medíocre

- Microfone um pouco embotado

- Consumo de energia relativamente alto

In review: HTC One A9s. Test model courtesy of HTC Germany.

O HTC One A9s definitivamente é um smartphone mainstream sólido. Você pode viver com a tela de baixa resolução graças à alta razão de contraste e cores com boa precisão, mas o painel é muito escuro. O padrão wireless 802.11ac faltante, não deveria ser um grande problemas para muito usuários. O desempenho e o equipamento de memória, inclusive foi melhorado – um motivo para se contentar?

Sim, o HTC One A9s é, de fato, um bom smartphone, mas é um segmento com muitos aparelho bons da Lenovo, OnePlus ou Samsung. A concorrência é, portanto, forte para o HTC One A9s, e alguns deles inclusive oferecem mais recursos de gama alta em comparação com o nosso modelo de teste. Mas será que você realmente precisa de um flash dual-LED, autofoco laser ou resoluções mais altas da câmera? Somente você pode responder isso.

O HTC One A9s é uma atualização bem sucedida do HTC One A9 e forneceu bons desempenhos em quase todas as seções de teste, mas não se destaca entre os rivais. Não existem verdadeiros destaques, mas você recebe um aparelho confiável sem frescuras.

A lista de desvantagens sérias para o HTC One A9s é bastante pequena: O alto falante poderia soar melhor e o sinal de WLAN poderia ser melhor. De outra forma, os resultados do teste são bons, mas não há destaques. Portanto, é um aparelho mainstream e um companheiro discreto e confiável, na prática, o qual também pode ser uma qualidade.

HTC One A9s - 12/15/2016 v6 ^(old)
Florian Wimmer

Acabamento

86%

Teclado

67 / 75 → 89%

Mouse

91%

Conectividade

38 / 60 → 63%

Peso

92%

Bateria