Breve Análise do Smartphone LG Q6
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| LG G6 | |
| Lenovo P2 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 | |
| LG Q6 | |
| Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| LG G6 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 | |
| Lenovo P2 | |
| LG Q6 | |
| Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 88 %
iluminação com acumulador: 523 cd/m²
Contraste: 2179:1 (Preto: 0.24 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.4 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 7.4 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
98.1% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.4
| LG Q6 IPS, 2160x1080, 5.5" | LG G6 IPS LCD, 2880x1440, 5.7" | Lenovo P2 AMOLED, 1920x1080, 5.5" | Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 Super AMOLED, 1920x1080, 5.2" | Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 19% | 27% | 42% | -14% | |
| Brightness middle | 523 | 646 24% | 479 -8% | 539 3% | 658 26% |
| Brightness | 498 | 611 23% | 477 -4% | 542 9% | 633 27% |
| Brightness Distribution | 88 | 89 1% | 91 3% | 93 6% | 93 6% |
| Black Level * | 0.24 | 0.23 4% | 0.66 -175% | ||
| Contrast | 2179 | 2809 29% | 997 -54% | ||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 6.4 | 4.5 30% | 2.4 62% | 1.6 75% | 4.9 23% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 11 | 8.3 25% | 5.6 49% | 2.6 76% | 9.1 17% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 7.4 | 6 19% | 2.8 62% | 1.5 80% | 5.8 22% |
| Gamma | 2.4 92% | 2.27 97% | 2.28 96% | 2.28 96% | 2.26 97% |
| CCT | 8641 75% | 7996 81% | 6702 97% | 6422 101% | 7840 83% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 67.74 | ||||
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 99.05 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| 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 8743 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 26 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 13 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 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. » 59 % 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 | ||
| 38 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 19 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 19 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. » 51 % 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) | |
| LG Q6 | |
| LG G6 | |
| Lenovo P2 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 | |
| Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL | |
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| LG Q6 | |
| LG G6 | |
| Lenovo P2 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 | |
| Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| LG Q6 | |
| LG G6 | |
| Lenovo P2 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 | |
| Geekbench 4.4 | |
| 64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value) | |
| LG Q6 | |
| LG G6 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 | |
| 64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value) | |
| LG Q6 | |
| LG G6 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 | |
| Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value) | |
| LG Q6 | |
| LG G6 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 | |
| GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | |
| T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| LG Q6 | |
| LG G6 | |
| Lenovo P2 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 | |
| Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL | |
| 1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| LG Q6 | |
| LG G6 | |
| Lenovo P2 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 | |
| Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL | |
| GFXBench 3.0 | |
| on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
| LG Q6 | |
| LG G6 | |
| Lenovo P2 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 | |
| Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL | |
| 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| LG Q6 | |
| LG G6 | |
| Lenovo P2 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 | |
| Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| LG Q6 | |
| LG G6 | |
| Lenovo P2 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 | |
| Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| LG Q6 | |
| LG G6 | |
| Lenovo P2 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 | |
| Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL | |
| GFXBench | |
| on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| LG Q6 | |
| LG G6 | |
| Lenovo P2 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 | |
| Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL | |
| 1920x1080 Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| LG Q6 | |
| LG G6 | |
| Lenovo P2 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 | |
| Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| LG G6 (Chrome 57) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 (Samsung Browser (Chrome 44)) | |
| Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL (Chrome 53.0.2785.124) | |
| Lenovo P2 (Chrome 56) | |
| LG Q6 (Chrome 59) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| LG G6 (Chrome 57) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 (Samsung Browser (Chrome 44)) | |
| Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL (Chrome 53.0.2785.124) | |
| Lenovo P2 (Chrome 56) | |
| LG Q6 (Chrome 59) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| LG Q6 (Chrome 59) | |
| Lenovo P2 (Chrome 56) | |
| Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL (Chrome 53.0.2785.124) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 (Samsung Browser (Chrome 44)) | |
| LG G6 (Chrome 57) | |
| WebXPRT 2015 - Overall | |
| LG G6 (Chrome 57) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 (Samsung Browser (Chrome 44)) | |
| Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL (Chrome 53.0.2785.124) | |
| Lenovo P2 | |
| LG Q6 (Chrome 59) | |
* ... smaller is better
| LG Q6 | LG G6 | Lenovo P2 | Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 | Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 31% | 50% | -21% | 6% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 263.1 | 428.7 63% | 270.1 3% | 182 -31% | 282 7% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 133.5 | 122.8 -8% | 76.7 -43% | 77.1 -42% | 188 41% |
| Random Read 4KB | 54.3 | 95.2 75% | 38.2 -30% | 22.41 -59% | 74 36% |
| Random Write 4KB | 9.2 | 16.58 80% | 44.4 383% | 12.13 32% | 7.4 -20% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 84.8 | 77.6 ? -8% | 79.3 ? -6% | 73.7 ? -13% | 79.2 ? -7% |
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 62.6 | 53.3 ? -15% | 59.4 ? -5% | 56 ? -11% | 50.1 ? -20% |
| Asphalt 8: Airborne | |||
| Configurações | Valor | ||
| high | 25 fps | ||
| very low | 30 fps | ||
| Dead Trigger 2 | |||
| Configurações | Valor | ||
| high | 30 fps | ||
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 34.6 °C / 94 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 34 °C / 93 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 31.4 °C / 89 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
LG Q6 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 36% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 13% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (12.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.9% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (35.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 83% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 16% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 92% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 6% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 15.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 9.4% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 49% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 42% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 67% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 26% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0.11 / 0.13 Watt |
| Ocioso |  0.92 / 2.19 / 2.24 Watt |
| Carga |
3.38 / 4 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| LG Q6 3000 mAh | LG G6 3300 mAh | Lenovo P2 5100 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 3000 mAh | Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL 3000 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -25% | 39% | 28% | -4% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.92 | 0.62 33% | 0.54 41% | 0.64 30% | 0.83 10% |
| Idle Average * | 2.19 | 1.43 35% | 1.01 54% | 1.36 38% | 2.11 4% |
| Idle Maximum * | 2.24 | 1.48 34% | 1.03 54% | 1.4 37% | 2.12 5% |
| Load Average * | 3.38 | 5.52 -63% | 1.78 47% | 2.53 25% | 3.41 -1% |
| Load Maximum * | 4 | 10.47 -162% | 3.98 -0% | 3.63 9% | 5.46 -37% |
* ... smaller is better
| LG Q6 3000 mAh | LG G6 3300 mAh | Lenovo P2 5100 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A5 2017 3000 mAh | Asus Zenfone 3 ZE552KL 3000 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 24% | 101% | 72% | 39% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1367 | 1789 31% | 2841 108% | 2418 77% | 1502 10% |
| H.264 | 623 | 779 25% | 1199 92% | 984 58% | 905 45% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 502 | 692 38% | 978 95% | 843 68% | 797 59% |
| Load | 251 | 252 0% | 528 110% | 467 86% | 352 40% |
Pro
Contra
A LG recortou o desempenho do Q6 um pouco demais, e o preço, pouco demais. O preço do LG Q6 compete com aparelhos que têm mais desempenho e mais duração da bateria - dois fatores importantes para um cliente potencial. Existem outras áreas, também, onde o LG Q6 não consegue manter o nível: os alto-falantes estão abaixo da média, o módulo Wi-Fi é bastante lento e o equipamento é apenas bom.
Então, novamente, a LG implementa alguns recursos agradáveis: a carcaça muito rígida e exclusiva com seu formato incomum e marcos laterais pequenos criam um aparelho muito atraente. O SO é atual e a LG promete atualizações rápidas no futuro. A qualidade das chamadas é boa, a câmera principal captura boas fotos, e a carcaça esquenta apenas um pouco sob uso intenso.
A LG fez recortes em muitos lugares. O desempenho do LG Q6 é muito baixo para esse segmento de preços. A carcaça sólida, as durações de bateria ligeiramente acima da média e a tela muito boa evitam que o telefone afunde.
Recomendamos que clientes potenciais esperem um pouco para a compra até que a LG ajustou o preço para o Q6 para um número mais adequado. Há muitos aparelhos melhores em seu segmento de preços atual, de cerca de $400. Se você gosta do design fino e está bem com o desempenho reduzido, estará recebendo um companheiro sólido para sua vida diária.
LG Q6
- 08/21/2017 v6 (old)
Florian Wimmer
Price comparison
