Breve Análise do Smartphone Huawei P30 Lite New Edition – Memória de gama alta
Comparison
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
79 % v7 (old) | 02/2020 | Huawei P30 Lite New Edition Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4 | 159 g | 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.15" | 2312x1080 | |
79.8 % v7 (old) | 01/2020 | Samsung Galaxy A51 Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3 | 172 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
78.3 % v7 (old) | 05/2019 | Huawei P30 Lite Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4 | 159 g | 128 GB eMMC Flash | 6.15" | 2312x1080 | |
81.6 % v7 (old) | 07/2019 | Xiaomi Mi 9T SD 730, Adreno 618 | 191 g | 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.39" | 2340x1080 | |
80.2 % v7 (old) | 05/2019 | Google Pixel 3a SD 670, Adreno 616 | 147 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 5.60" | 2220x1080 |
Os Top 10
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Multimídia
» Os Top 10 Portáteis de Jogos
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Leves para Jogos
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Acessíveis de Escritório/Empresariais
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Premium de Escritório/Empresariais
» Os Top 10 dos Portáteis Workstation
» Os Top 10 Subportáteis
» Os Top 10 Ultrabooks
» Os Top 10 Conversíveis
» Os Top 10 Tablets
» Os Top 10 Smartphones
» A melhores Telas de Portáteis Analisadas Pela Notebookcheck
» Top 10 dos portáteis abaixo dos 500 Euros da Notebookcheck
» Top 10 dos Portáteis abaixo dos 300 Euros
Size Comparison
Networking | |
iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
Google Pixel 3a | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition | |
Huawei P30 Lite | |
iperf3 receive AX12 | |
Google Pixel 3a | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition | |
Huawei P30 Lite |
|
iluminação: 88 %
iluminação com acumulador: 507 cd/m²
Contraste: 1334:1 (Preto: 0.38 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.72 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 5.5 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
99.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.158
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition IPS, 2312x1080, 6.2" | Samsung Galaxy A51 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.5" | Huawei P30 Lite IPS LCD, 2312x1080, 6.2" | Xiaomi Mi 9T AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | Google Pixel 3a P-OLED, 2220x1080, 5.6" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | 24% | 8% | 34% | -2% | |
Brightness middle | 507 | 589 16% | 451 -11% | 589 16% | 403 -21% |
Brightness | 481 | 589 22% | 430 -11% | 589 22% | 411 -15% |
Brightness Distribution | 88 | 94 7% | 90 2% | 96 9% | 96 9% |
Black Level * | 0.38 | 0.55 -45% | |||
Contrast | 1334 | 820 -39% | |||
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.72 | 2.22 53% | 1.4 70% | 2.5 47% | 5.1 -8% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 7.84 | 8.24 -5% | 4.4 44% | 4.9 37% | 11 -40% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 5.5 | 2.6 53% | 2.5 55% | 1.6 71% | 2 64% |
Gamma | 2.158 102% | 2.111 104% | 2.22 99% | 2.24 98% | 2.22 99% |
CCT | 7596 86% | 6508 100% | 6422 101% | 6544 99% | 6589 99% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 893 Hz | ≤ 10 % brightness setting | |
The display backlight flickers at 893 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 10 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 893 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8746 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. |
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
24 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 9 ms rise | |
↘ 15 ms fall | ||
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 50 % 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 | ||
44 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 21 ms rise | |
↘ 23 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. » 71 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). |
PCMark for Android | |
Work performance score (sort by value) | |
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Huawei P30 Lite | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Google Pixel 3a | |
Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (7004 - 9854, n=13) | |
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Huawei P30 Lite | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Google Pixel 3a | |
Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (5803 - 7141, n=12) |
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=161, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
Google Pixel 3a | |
Huawei P30 Lite (Chrome 74) | |
Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (30 - 33, n=8) | |
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition (Chrome 79) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
Huawei P30 Lite (Chrome 74) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition (Chrome 79) | |
Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (47 - 55.1, n=10) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=146, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (30.4 - 33.9, n=6) | |
Huawei P30 Lite (Chrome 74) | |
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition (Chrome 79) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) |
WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
Huawei P30 Lite (Chrome 74) | |
Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (52 - 69, n=11) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition (Chrome 79) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=203, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
Google Pixel 3a | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
Huawei P30 Lite (Chrome 74) | |
Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (9041 - 10544, n=13) | |
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition (Chrome 79) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition (Chrome 79) | |
Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (3999 - 4853, n=13) | |
Huawei P30 Lite (Chrome 74) | |
Google Pixel 3a | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=160, last 2 years) |
* ... smaller is better
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition | Samsung Galaxy A51 | Huawei P30 Lite | Xiaomi Mi 9T | Google Pixel 3a | Average 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | -32% | -39% | -41% | -52% | -11% | 128% | |
Sequential Read 256KB | 800 | 496.1 -38% | 293.2 -63% | 492.7 -38% | 302 -62% | 826 ? 3% | 1839 ? 130% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 391.1 | 184.9 -53% | 158.6 -59% | 179.2 -54% | 253.9 -35% | 358 ? -8% | 1425 ? 264% |
Random Read 4KB | 198.7 | 110.8 -44% | 71.6 -64% | 128.6 -35% | 63.6 -68% | 166.6 ? -16% | 277 ? 39% |
Random Write 4KB | 171.6 | 104.4 -39% | 87.3 -49% | 107.8 -37% | 99.9 -42% | 141.5 ? -18% | 309 ? 80% |
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 76.6 ? | 73 ? -5% | 76.8 ? 0% | 66.8 ? -13% | |||
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 66.8 ? | 60.1 ? -10% | 67.8 ? 1% | 56.3 ? -16% |
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 42.5 °C / 109 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 43.5 °C / 110 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 32.2 °C / 90 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.8 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 (120.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 88% 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%
Samsung Galaxy A51 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 65.7% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 65.7% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 65.7% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (123.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 91% 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, 2% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
desligado | 0 / 0.2 Watt |
Ocioso | 0.95 / 2.1 / 2.4 Watt |
Carga |
4.2 / 7.7 Watt |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition 3340 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A51 4000 mAh | Huawei P30 Lite 3340 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9T 4000 mAh | Google Pixel 3a 3000 mAh | Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | 8% | -4% | 44% | 35% | -6% | -2% | |
Idle Minimum * | 0.95 | 0.9 5% | 0.91 4% | 0.54 43% | 0.61 36% | 1.058 ? -11% | 0.894 ? 6% |
Idle Average * | 2.1 | 1.7 19% | 2.41 -15% | 0.95 55% | 1.56 26% | 2.2 ? -5% | 1.456 ? 31% |
Idle Maximum * | 2.4 | 1.8 25% | 2.43 -1% | 1.08 55% | 1.6 33% | 2.57 ? -7% | 1.616 ? 33% |
Load Average * | 4.2 | 5.2 -24% | 4.57 -9% | 2.7 36% | 2.67 36% | 4.61 ? -10% | 6.45 ? -54% |
Load Maximum * | 7.7 | 6.6 14% | 7.57 2% | 5.4 30% | 4.33 44% | 7.6 ? 1% | 9.8 ? -27% |
* ... smaller is better
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition 3340 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A51 4000 mAh | Huawei P30 Lite 3340 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9T 4000 mAh | Google Pixel 3a 3000 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | 14% | -16% | 41% | -15% | |
Reader / Idle | 1359 | 1689 24% | 1248 -8% | 2138 57% | |
H.264 | 802 | 846 5% | 685 -15% | 1208 51% | |
WiFi v1.3 | 719 | 698 -3% | 515 -28% | 991 38% | 612 -15% |
Load | 223 | 289 30% | 198 -11% | 258 16% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto – Bastante a situação
Com o P30 Lite New Edition, a Huawei não reinventou a roda e lançou uma atualização sólida que provavelmente nasceu por necessidade. A Huawei pede desculpas pelo design familiar, mas de maneira alguma desatualizado, com uma configuração de memória quase desconhecida por esse preço. Seu antecessor já ofereceu algumas vantagens óbvias: As câmeras decentes retornaram e, embora a maior resolução da câmera frontal não faça diferença durante o uso diário, ainda é boa de ter. Outras vantagens incluem a qualidade da construção, o sensor de digitais sensível na parte traseira e o bom painel IPS.
Em termos de desempenho, pouco mudou além do armazenamento rápido: Embora o sistema operacional funcione de maneira relativamente fluente no SoC, em geral, o smartphone é um pouco mais lento do que os outros em sua faixa de preço. Isso piora pelo fato de que o processador é afogado sob uso intenso. Da mesma forma, o lento Wi-Fi e o baixo número de frequências LTE suportadas são um aborrecimento.
Embora o P30 Lite New Edition da Huawei possa usar componentes mais modernos, o fabricante os compensa com muito armazenamento e um design elegante.
Além disso, a versão 4.2 do Bluetooth sugere que o design do telefone é um pouco antiquado, já que a Huawei provavelmente usaria componentes mais modernos para o atual smartphone de gama média, se não fosse a disputa comercial.
O resultado é um sólido smartphone de gama média, que deve agradar aos usuários que precisam de muito armazenamento. No entanto, as deficiências mencionadas acima devem ser lembradas.
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition
- 01/27/2020 v7 (old)
Florian Schmitt