Breve Análise do Smartphone Nokia 8 Sirocco

Name: Nokia 8 Sirocco
Brand: Nokia

Um smartphone para os fanáticos do design? O Nokia 8 Sirocco tem um nome incomum e visual incomum. Será que o telefone da gama alta consegue agradar a multidão ou é principalmente interessante para os fanáticos do design? Vamos descobrir em nossa análise.

Florian Wimmer, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, ✓ Felicitas Krohn (traduzido por Ricardo Soto), Published 06/03/2018 🇺🇸 🇩🇪 ...

Smartphone Android ARM Touchscreen

Test device courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de

Download your licensed rating image as PNG / SVG

Nokia 8 Sirocco (8 Serie)

Processador

Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) 8 x 2.5 GHz, Kryo 280

Placa gráfica

Qualcomm Adreno 540

Memória

6 GB

, LPPDDR 4X

Pantalha

5.50 polegadas 16:9, 2560 x 1440 pixel 534 PPI, Tela táctil capacitiva, P-OLED, Corning Gorilla Glas 5, Brilhante: sim

Disco rígido

128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 128 GB

, 114 GB livre

Conexões

1 USB 3.0, Conexões Audio: Saída de áudio via porta USB-C, 1 Leitor de Impressões Digitais, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensores: acelerômetro, giroscópio, sensor de proximidade, barômetro, bússola, ANT+, USB-OTG

Funcionamento em rede

802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/), Bluetooth 5.0, 2G 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900; 3G 850 / 900 / 1900 / 2100; LTE 1(2100), 2(1900), 3(1800), 4(1700/2100), 5(850), 7(2600), 8(900), 20(800), 28(700), 34(2000), 38(2600), 39(1900), 40(2300), 41(2500), LTE, GPS

Tamanho

altura x largura x profundidade (em mm): 7.5 x 140.9 x 72.97

Bateria

12.4 Wh, 3260 mAh Lítio-Ion, Carregamento sem fio (Qi), QuickCharge 4.0, Tempo de conversação 3G (de acordo com o fabricante): 22 h, Standby 3G (de acordo com o fabricante): 495 h

Sistema Operativo

Android 8.1 Oreo

Camera

Primary Camera: 12 MPix f/1.7, phase detection AF, Dual LED flash, Videos @2160p/30fps (main camera); 13.0MP, f/2.6, depth of field, telephoto lens (second camera)
Secondary Camera: 5 MPix f/2.0, 1.4 µm

Características adicionais

Alto falantes: Um alto-falante na borda inferior, Teclado: Teclado virtual, Fonte de alimentação QuickCharge, cabo USB, fones, adaptador de áudio, ferramenta SIM, capa, Suporte, 24 Meses Garantia, bandwidth (download/upload): 600Mbps/150Mbps (LTE); SAR value: 0.54 W/kg (head); 1.54 W/kg (body) IP67 certified, fanless

peso

176 g, Suprimento de energia: 83 g

Preço

749 Euro

Links

Nokia 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
Sony Xperia XZ2 Adreno 630, SD 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	633 MBit/s +15%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force Adreno 540, SD 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	587 MBit/s +7%
Nokia 8 Sirocco Adreno 540, SD 835, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	550 MBit/s
Samsung Galaxy S9 Mali-G72 MP18, Exynos 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	519 MBit/s -6%
Nokia 8 Adreno 540, SD 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	235 MBit/s -57%
Huawei P10 Plus Mali-G71 MP8, Kirin 960, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash	128 MBit/s -77%
iperf3 receive AX12
Sony Xperia XZ2 Adreno 630, SD 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	669 MBit/s +141%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Mali-G72 MP18, Exynos 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	652 MBit/s +135%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force Adreno 540, SD 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	573 MBit/s +106%
Nokia 8 Sirocco Adreno 540, SD 835, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	278 MBit/s
Nokia 8 Adreno 540, SD 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	235 MBit/s -15%
Huawei P10 Plus Mali-G71 MP8, Kirin 960, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash	40.8 MBit/s -85%

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


555 cd/m²	575 cd/m²	650 cd/m²
563 cd/m²	576 cd/m²	645 cd/m²
560 cd/m²	599 cd/m²	648 cd/m²

Distribuição do brilho

tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2

Máximo: 650 cd/m² (Nits) Médio: 596.8 cd/m² Minimum: 3.28 cd/m²
iluminação: 85 %
iluminação com acumulador: 576 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.93
ΔE Greyscale 5.4 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
Gamma: 2.3

	Nokia 8 Sirocco P-OLED, 2560x1440, 5.5"	Sony Xperia XZ2 IPS, 2160x1080, 5.7"	Motorola Moto Z2 Force OLED, 2560x1440, 5.5"	Samsung Galaxy S9 Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 5.8"	Huawei P10 Plus LTPS, 2560x1440, 5.5"	Nokia 8 IPS, 2560x1440, 5.3"
Screen		34%	1%	31%	27%	-16%
Brightness middle	576	630 9%	511 -11%	529 -8%	568 -1%	735 28%
Brightness	597	632 6%	526 -12%	527 -12%	562 -6%	707 18%
Brightness Distribution	85	96 13%	88 4%	96 13%	92 8%	92 8%
Black Level *		0.44			0.43	0.79
Colorchecker dE 2000 *	5	1.5 70%	4.3 14%	1.4 72%	2.4 52%	6.7 -34%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *	8	4.3 46%	9.6 -20%	4 50%	3.8 52%	12.9 -61%
Greyscale dE 2000 *	5.4	2.1 61%	3.7 31%	1.6 70%	2.5 54%	8.3 -54%
Gamma	2.3 ^96%	2.17 ^101%	2.11 ^104%	2.16 ^102%	2.37 ^93%	2.24 ^98%
CCT	7730 ^84%	6513 ^100%	7075 ^92%	6358 ^102%	6779 ^96%	8906 ^73%
Contrast		1432			1321	930

* ... 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 detected

250 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 250 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 250 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below.

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8774 (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
4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 2 ms rise
4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 2 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
4.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 2.8 ms rise
4.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 2 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 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 13 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms).

AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	185487 Points
Sony Xperia XZ2	225663 Points +22%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force	179595 Points -3%
Samsung Galaxy S9	217950 Points +18%
Huawei P10 Plus	138326 Points -25%
Nokia 8	177018 Points -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (150208 - 185487, n=17)	173235 Points -7%

AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	209729 Points
Sony Xperia XZ2	266981 Points +27%
Samsung Galaxy S9	243861 Points +16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (201881 - 217442, n=8)	208685 Points 0%

PCMark for Android
Work performance score (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	7925 Points
Sony Xperia XZ2	9319 Points +18%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force	8553 Points +8%
Samsung Galaxy S9	5736 Points -28%
Huawei P10 Plus	7377 Points -7%
Nokia 8	8282 Points +5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (6854 - 9927, n=20)	7925 Points 0%
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	7193 Points
Sony Xperia XZ2	8069 Points +12%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force	6998 Points -3%
Samsung Galaxy S9	5291 Points -26%
Huawei P10 Plus	6157 Points -14%
Nokia 8	6959 Points -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (5603 - 7510, n=20)	6743 Points -6%

BaseMark OS II
Overall (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	3416 Points
Sony Xperia XZ2	3738 Points +9%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force	3625 Points +6%
Samsung Galaxy S9	3285 Points -4%
Huawei P10 Plus	2563 Points -25%
Nokia 8	3505 Points +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (2702 - 3790, n=17)	3367 Points -1%
Average of class Smartphone (1196 - 11976, n=152, last 2 years)	6257 Points +83%
System (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	5888 Points
Sony Xperia XZ2	8402 Points +43%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force	5918 Points +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9	6234 Points +6%
Huawei P10 Plus	3572 Points -39%
Nokia 8	5671 Points -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (4238 - 5926, n=17)	5690 Points -3%
Average of class Smartphone (2368 - 16475, n=152, last 2 years)	10131 Points +72%
Memory (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	3162 Points
Sony Xperia XZ2	2193 Points -31%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force	3652 Points +15%
Samsung Galaxy S9	2669 Points -16%
Huawei P10 Plus	3331 Points +5%
Nokia 8	3540 Points +12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (1501 - 4423, n=17)	3137 Points -1%
Average of class Smartphone (962 - 12716, n=152, last 2 years)	6714 Points +112%
Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	6084 Points
Sony Xperia XZ2	7868 Points +29%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force	6144 Points +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9	6373 Points +5%
Huawei P10 Plus	3438 Points -43%
Nokia 8	5958 Points -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (5791 - 6273, n=17)	6052 Points -1%
Average of class Smartphone (1017 - 58651, n=152, last 2 years)	16761 Points +175%
Web (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	1202 Points
Sony Xperia XZ2	1346 Points +12%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force	1300 Points +8%
Samsung Galaxy S9	1099 Points -9%
Huawei P10 Plus	1054 Points -12%
Nokia 8	1262 Points +5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (1009 - 1329, n=17)	1222 Points +2%
Average of class Smartphone (841 - 2145, n=152, last 2 years)	1557 Points +30%

Geekbench 4.4
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	1952 Points
Sony Xperia XZ2	2464 Points +26%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force	1911 Points -2%
Samsung Galaxy S9	3688 Points +89%
Huawei P10 Plus	1852 Points -5%
Nokia 8	1924 Points -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (1809 - 1973, n=18)	1917 Points -2%
Average of class Smartphone (844 - 9574, n=82, last 2 years)	5422 Points +178%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	6701 Points
Sony Xperia XZ2	8510 Points +27%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force	6711 Points 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9	8786 Points +31%
Huawei P10 Plus	6267 Points -6%
Nokia 8	6479 Points -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (6006 - 6799, n=18)	6515 Points -3%
Average of class Smartphone (2630 - 30323, n=82, last 2 years)	14892 Points +122%
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	7865 Points
Sony Xperia XZ2	14362 Points +83%
Samsung Galaxy S9	6219 Points -21%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (7462 - 8281, n=13)	7893 Points 0%
Average of class Smartphone (5192 - 18534, n=57, last 2 years)	11924 Points +52%

3DMark
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	42040 Points
Sony Xperia XZ2	62926 Points +50%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force	40848 Points -3%
Samsung Galaxy S9	41093 Points -2%
Huawei P10 Plus	26156 Points -38%
Nokia 8	40968 Points -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (12604 - 42278, n=20)	37906 Points -10%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	58018 Points
Sony Xperia XZ2	80233 Points +38%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force	55485 Points -4%
Samsung Galaxy S9	48433 Points -17%
Huawei P10 Plus	33307 Points -43%
Nokia 8	56531 Points -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (16794 - 58360, n=20)	53776 Points -7%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	21407 Points
Sony Xperia XZ2	35856 Points +67%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force	21239 Points -1%
Samsung Galaxy S9	26851 Points +25%
Huawei P10 Plus	14934 Points -30%
Nokia 8	20951 Points -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (6729 - 23046, n=20)	19196 Points -10%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	3709 Points
Sony Xperia XZ2	6378 Points +72%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force	4969 Points +34%
Samsung Galaxy S9	3911 Points +5%
Huawei P10 Plus	2229 Points -40%
Nokia 8	4814 Points +30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (3407 - 5030, n=18)	4583 Points +24%
Average of class Smartphone (812 - 7285, n=26, last 2 years)	4204 Points +13%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	4511 Points
Sony Xperia XZ2	8122 Points +80%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force	6035 Points +34%
Samsung Galaxy S9	4569 Points +1%
Huawei P10 Plus	2469 Points -45%
Nokia 8	5818 Points +29%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (3682 - 6231, n=18)	5648 Points +25%
Average of class Smartphone (756 - 9451, n=26, last 2 years)	4740 Points +5%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	2287 Points
Sony Xperia XZ2	3642 Points +59%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force	3071 Points +34%
Samsung Galaxy S9	2600 Points +14%
Huawei P10 Plus	1662 Points -27%
Nokia 8	3002 Points +31%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (1574 - 3092, n=18)	2807 Points +23%
Average of class Smartphone (1093 - 4349, n=26, last 2 years)	3303 Points +44%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	3656 Points
Sony Xperia XZ2	4693 Points +28%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force	3713 Points +2%
Samsung Galaxy S9	3244 Points -11%
Huawei P10 Plus	1747 Points -52%
Nokia 8	3655 Points 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (2895 - 3810, n=19)	3616 Points -1%
Average of class Smartphone (286 - 17553, n=74, last 2 years)	3077 Points -16%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	3926 Points
Sony Xperia XZ2	5122 Points +30%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force	3991 Points +2%
Samsung Galaxy S9	3553 Points -10%
Huawei P10 Plus	1767 Points -55%
Nokia 8	3894 Points -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (3560 - 4072, n=19)	3907 Points 0%
Average of class Smartphone (240 - 29890, n=74, last 2 years)	3252 Points -17%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	2946 Points
Sony Xperia XZ2	3630 Points +23%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force	2986 Points +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9	2486 Points -16%
Huawei P10 Plus	1679 Points -43%
Nokia 8	3010 Points +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (1628 - 3157, n=19)	2898 Points -2%
Average of class Smartphone (858 - 7180, n=74, last 2 years)	3288 Points +12%

GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	60 fps
Sony Xperia XZ2	60 fps 0%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force	60 fps 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9	60 fps 0%
Huawei P10 Plus	40 fps -33%
Nokia 8	54 fps -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (54 - 79, n=19)	60.3 fps +1%
Average of class Smartphone (23 - 165, n=170, last 2 years)	85.7 fps +43%
1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	106 fps
Sony Xperia XZ2	150 fps +42%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force	105 fps -1%
Samsung Galaxy S9	144 fps +36%
Huawei P10 Plus	56 fps -47%
Nokia 8	99 fps -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (69 - 119, n=18)	107 fps +1%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 791, n=170, last 2 years)	279 fps +163%

GFXBench 3.0
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	37 fps
Sony Xperia XZ2	59 fps +59%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force	36 fps -3%
Samsung Galaxy S9	45 fps +22%
Huawei P10 Plus	29 fps -22%
Nokia 8	31 fps -16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (29 - 58, n=19)	42.3 fps +14%
Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 165, n=170, last 2 years)	75 fps +103%
1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	54 fps
Sony Xperia XZ2	82 fps +52%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force	54 fps 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9	73 fps +35%
Huawei P10 Plus	19 fps -65%
Nokia 8	51 fps -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (43 - 64, n=19)	55.2 fps +2%
Average of class Smartphone (12 - 482, n=170, last 2 years)	164.1 fps +204%

GFXBench 3.1
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	24 fps
Sony Xperia XZ2	55 fps +129%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force	22 fps -8%
Samsung Galaxy S9	24 fps 0%
Huawei P10 Plus	12 fps -50%
Nokia 8	17 fps -29%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (15 - 59, n=19)	29.1 fps +21%
Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 158, n=170, last 2 years)	65.2 fps +172%
1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	41 fps
Sony Xperia XZ2	60 fps +46%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force	40 fps -2%
Samsung Galaxy S9	46 fps +12%
Huawei P10 Plus	22 fps -46%
Nokia 8	36 fps -12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (21 - 43, n=19)	37.9 fps -8%
Average of class Smartphone (8.3 - 341, n=170, last 2 years)	116.5 fps +184%

GFXBench
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	15 fps
Sony Xperia XZ2	33 fps +120%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force	15 fps 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9	14 fps -7%
Huawei P10 Plus	10 fps -33%
Nokia 8	13 fps -13%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (11 - 50, n=19)	19.5 fps +30%
Average of class Smartphone (5 - 119, n=171, last 2 years)	47.5 fps +217%
1920x1080 Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 8 Sirocco	26 fps
Sony Xperia XZ2	35 fps +35%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force	25 fps -4%
Samsung Galaxy S9	28 fps +8%
Huawei P10 Plus	15 fps -42%
Nokia 8	24 fps -8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (22 - 26, n=19)	24.5 fps -6%
Average of class Smartphone (3.1 - 216, n=170, last 2 years)	70.3 fps +170%

Legend

Nokia 8 Sirocco Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

Sony Xperia XZ2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

Motorola Moto Z2 Force Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

Samsung Galaxy S9 Samsung Exynos 9810, ARM Mali-G72 MP18, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

Huawei P10 Plus HiSilicon Kirin 960, ARM Mali-G71 MP8, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash

Nokia 8 Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998)

Average of class Smartphone

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

JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Sony Xperia XZ2 (Chrome 65)	89.5 Points +44%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)	67.7 Points +9%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force (Chrome 63.0.3239.111)	66.7 Points +7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (52.9 - 80.4, n=19)	66.1 Points +6%
Nokia 8 (Chrome 61.0.3163.98)	63.4 Points +2%
Nokia 8 Sirocco (Chrome 66)	62.2 Points
Huawei P10 Plus	58.4 Points -6%

Octane V2 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=204, last 2 years)	36733 Points +218%
Sony Xperia XZ2 (Chrome 65)	16774 Points +45%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)	15233 Points +32%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force (Chrome 63.0.3239.111)	12929 Points +12%
Nokia 8 Sirocco (Chrome 66)	11544 Points
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (3086 - 14300, n=20)	11209 Points -3%
Nokia 8 (Chrome 61.0.3163.98)	11131 Points -4%
Huawei P10 Plus (Chrome 58.0.3029.83)	10213 Points -12%

Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total
Nokia 8 Sirocco (Chrome 66)	4813 ms *
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (2425 - 4813, n=19)	3219 ms * +33%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force (Chrome 63.0.3239.111)	3175 ms * +34%
Nokia 8 (Chrome 61.0.3163.98)	3160 ms * +34%
Huawei P10 Plus (Chrome 58.0.3029.83)	3107 ms * +35%
Sony Xperia XZ2 (Chrome 65)	2394 ms * +50%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)	2078 ms * +57%
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=161, last 2 years)	1583 ms * +67%

WebXPRT 2015 - Overall
Sony Xperia XZ2 (Chrome 65)	262 Points +28%
Nokia 8 Sirocco (Chrome 66)	204 Points
Nokia 8 (Chrome 61.0.3163.98)	174 Points -15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (57 - 204, n=17)	164.4 Points -19%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)	163 Points -20%
Motorola Moto Z2 Force (Chrome 63.0.3239.111)	161 Points -21%
Huawei P10 Plus	140 Points -31%

* ... smaller is better

	Nokia 8 Sirocco	Sony Xperia XZ2	Motorola Moto Z2 Force	Samsung Galaxy S9	Huawei P10 Plus	Nokia 8	Average 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	Average of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5		-8%	63%	1%	144%	-11%	135%	526%
Sequential Read 256KB	738	679 -8%	696 -6%	815 10%	733 -1%	680 -8%	760 ?(427 - 1011, n=113) 3%	1834 ?(226 - 4512, n=193, last 2 years) 149%
Sequential Write 256KB	211.6	198.7 -6%	213.6 1%	206.9 -2%	182.6 -14%	199.1 -6%	297 ?(13.6 - 719, n=113) 40%	1426 ?(57.5 - 3908, n=193, last 2 years) 574%
Random Read 4KB	140.7	149.4 6%	148.8 6%	131 -7%	173.1 23%	145.7 4%	152.9 ?(92.6 - 239, n=113) 9%	278 ?(22.2 - 543, n=193, last 2 years) 98%
Random Write 4KB	22.4	17 -24%	78.6 251%	23.07 3%	149.8 569%	14.57 -35%	131.6 ?(18.2 - 290, n=113) 488%	310 ?(9.4 - 753, n=193, last 2 years) 1284%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard		34.25 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)	77.4 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)	79.2 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)	54 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)	76.8 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)	76 ?(13.4 - 88.3, n=43)
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard		30.12 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)	54.7 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)	67.2 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)	33.61 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)	51.7 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)	59.6 ?(8.4 - 72.4, n=43)

Arena of Valor
	Configurações	Valor
	min	60 fps
	high HD	60 fps

Shadow Fight 3
	Configurações	Valor
	high	60 fps
	minimal	60 fps

Carga Máxima

Inatividade


36.5 °C	36.9 °C	37.5 °C
39.4 °C	39.9 °C	38.2 °C
39.9 °C	40.8 °C	39.4 °C

Máximo: 40.8 °C
Médio: 38.7 °C


35.4 °C	35.4 °C	35.8 °C
33.8 °C	37.5 °C	40 °C
33.5 °C	39.1 °C	42.3 °C

Máximo: 42.3 °C
Médio: 37 °C

alimentação elétrica 31.7 °C | Temperatura do quarto 22 °C | Voltcraft IR-260

(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 38.7 °C / 102 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 40.8 °C / 105 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 42.3 °C / 108 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 32.1 °C / 90 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.

Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)

Nokia 8 Sirocco audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (91.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.8% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 11.6% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (25.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 57% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 35% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 74% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 21% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Nokia 8 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (91.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26.6% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (5.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 6.7% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 40% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 52% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 59% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 34% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Consumo de energia

desligado	0 / 0.14 Watt
Ocioso	0.78 / 1.53 / 1.57 Watt
Carga	3.49 / 6.96 Watt


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

	Nokia 8 Sirocco 3260 mAh	Sony Xperia XZ2 3180 mAh	Motorola Moto Z2 Force 2730 mAh	Samsung Galaxy S9 3000 mAh	Huawei P10 Plus 3750 mAh	Nokia 8 3090 mAh	Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998)	Average of class Smartphone
Power Consumption		-29%	29%	19%	-66%	-33%	-26%	-27%
Idle Minimum *	0.78	0.72 8%	0.52 33%	0.65 17%	1.03 -32%	0.86 -10%	0.852 ?(0.45 - 2.2, n=18) -9%	0.895 ?(0.4 - 2.37, n=153, last 2 years) -15%
Idle Average *	1.53	2.21 -44%	0.84 45%	0.81 47%	2.61 -71%	2.13 -39%	2.02 ?(0.84 - 4.5, n=18) -32%	1.447 ?(0.6 - 4.26, n=153, last 2 years) 5%
Idle Maximum *	1.57	2.22 -41%	0.85 46%	0.92 41%	2.83 -80%	2.16 -38%	2.12 ?(0.85 - 5.2, n=18) -35%	1.608 ?(0.83 - 4.45, n=153, last 2 years) -2%
Load Average *	3.49	4.6 -32%	2.71 22%	4.76 -36%	7.03 -101%	4.65 -33%	4.69 ?(2.71 - 8.8, n=18) -34%	6.41 ?(2.3 - 16.5, n=148, last 2 years) -84%
Load Maximum *	6.96	9.34 -34%	7.2 -3%	5.16 26%	10.08 -45%	9.99 -44%	8.46 ?(6.96 - 11.2, n=18) -22%	9.61 ?(3.53 - 20.8, n=148, last 2 years) -38%

* ... smaller is better

Tempo de Execução da Bateria

Ocioso (sem WLAN, min brilho)		26h 43min
WiFi Websurfing		11h 33min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p		12h 05min
Carga (máximo brilho)		5h 17min

	Nokia 8 Sirocco 3260 mAh	Sony Xperia XZ2 3180 mAh	Motorola Moto Z2 Force 2730 mAh	Samsung Galaxy S9 3000 mAh	Huawei P10 Plus 3750 mAh	Nokia 8 3090 mAh
Battery Runtime		-16%	1%	-31%	-7%	-9%
Reader / Idle	1603	1402 -13%	1630 2%	1182 -26%	1655 3%	1506 -6%
H.264	725	722 0%	811 12%	609 -16%	756 4%	733 1%
WiFi v1.3	693	679 -2%	531 -23%	474 -32%	760 10%	650 -6%
Load	317	159 -50%	354 12%	164 -48%	174 -45%	237 -25%

Pro

+ Carcaça muito estável e de alta qualidade

+ Longa duração da bateria

+ É possível jogar a 60 fps

+ Tela táctil muito precisa

+ Bom microfone

+ Android puro com atualização garantida

+ Grande capacidade de armazenamento

Contra

- Sem conector de áudio de 3,5-mm

- Comportamento estranho no Google Maps

- Velocidades médias do Wi-Fi

- Câmera selfie nada impressionante

- Efeitos de cores estranhos devido à tela curva

- Temperaturas relativamente altas sob uso intenso

- Afogamento significante depois de longos períodos de uso intenso

Review: Nokia 8 Sirocco. Test unit provided by notebooksbilliger.de

O Nokia 8 Sirocco definitivamente é um smartphone para individualistas; a Nokia cumpriu sua promessa, dando a esse telefone um nome bastante particular. O telefone tem todas as características de um telefone celular de gama alta atual: Durações de bateria longas, alto desempenho, uma tela de alta resolução, jogos a 60 FPS, uma câmera dupla decente e LTE rápido. A carcaça parece muito elegante, é extremamente estável e também resistente à água e poeira.

Mas o Sirocco não é perfeito: A Nokia teria que encontrar uma solução melhor para o efeito de cor estranha que a tela causa no conteúdo branco, lidar com o estranho comportamento do GPS no Google Maps e equipar o dispositivo com uma câmera frontal melhor. Os alto-falantes podem ser muito fortes, mas o som não está balanceado e não há certificação de áudio de alta resolução. O desenvolvimento de calor é bastante forte sob uso intenso e o desempenho do SoC não é constante e cai significativamente após um curto período de tempo sob uso intenso.

O Nokia 8 Sirocco não é perfeito, mas é um bom smartphone de gama alta para os individualistas.

Apesar de suas fraquezas, o Nokia 8 Sirocco tem estilo e também pode oferecer muitas vantagens, incluindo um generoso conjunto de acessórios e Android puro com garantia de atualização. Portanto, podemos recomendar o Nokia 8 Sirocco a todos que estiverem prontos para aceitar as deficiências mencionadas acima, em troca de algo diferente dos modelos comuns e medíocres.

Nokia 8 Sirocco - 2022-09-03 09/03/2022 v7 ^(old)
Florian Wimmer

Acabamento

89%

Teclado

66 / 75 → 88%

Mouse

93%

Conectividade

48 / 70 → 69%

Peso

90%

Bateria

89%

Pantalha

84%

Desempenho do jogos

39 / 64 → 61%

Desempenho da aplicação

58 / 86 → 67%

Temperatura

88%

Ruído

100%

Audio

71 / 90 → 79%

Camera

65%

Médio

75%

82%

Smartphone - Médio equilibrado

Price comparison

Editor of the original article: Katherine Bodner - Translator - 317 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2017

contact me via: LinkedIn

Please share our article, every link counts!

> Análises e revisões de portáteis e celulares > Análises > Análises > Breve Análise do Smartphone Nokia 8 Sirocco

Florian Wimmer, 2018-06- 3 (Update: 2018-06-21)

Size Comparison

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

Display Response Times

Nokia 8 Sirocco audio analysis

Nokia 8 audio analysis

Pro

Contra

More articles related to this device

Price comparison