Breve Análise do Smartphone Razer Phone 2017
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 92 %
iluminação com acumulador: 436 cd/m²
Contraste: 2725:1 (Preto: 0.16 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.88 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 5.8 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
97.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.45
| Razer Phone 2017 IGZO LCD, 120 Hz, Wide Color Gamut, 1440x2560, 5.7" | Apple iPhone 8 Plus IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5" | OnePlus 5T AMOLED, 2160x1080, 6" | Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.2" | Huawei Mate 10 Pro OLED, 2160x1080, 6" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 9% | 26% | 42% | 45% | |
| Brightness middle | 436 | 559 28% | 425 -3% | 560 28% | 629 44% |
| Brightness | 417 | 538 29% | 423 1% | 562 35% | 636 53% |
| Brightness Distribution | 92 | 90 -2% | 92 0% | 93 1% | 94 2% |
| Black Level * | 0.16 | 0.38 -138% | |||
| Contrast | 2725 | 1471 -46% | |||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 3.88 | 1.3 66% | 2.1 46% | 1.7 56% | 1.7 56% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 7.96 | 2.7 66% | 3.4 57% | 3.4 57% | 3.6 55% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 5.8 | 1.8 69% | 2.5 57% | 1.6 72% | 2.4 59% |
| Gamma | 2.45 90% | 2.25 98% | 2.32 95% | 2.13 103% | 2.15 102% |
| CCT | 7657 85% | 6797 96% | 6455 101% | 6435 101% | 6337 103% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 81.57 | ||||
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 99.87 |
* ... 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 19 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 12 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 7 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. » 38 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (21 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 30 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 17 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 13 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 (32.9 ms). | ||
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Razer Phone 2017 | |
| OnePlus 5T | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (6854 - 9927, n=20) | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| Razer Phone 2017 | |
| OnePlus 5T | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (5603 - 7510, n=20) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone 8 Plus | |
| OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (52.9 - 80.4, n=19) | |
| Razer Phone 2017 (Chrome 65) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus (Samsung Browser 5.2) | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=204, last 2 years) | |
| Apple iPhone 8 Plus | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus (Samsung Browser 5.2) | |
| Razer Phone 2017 (Chrome 65) | |
| OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (3086 - 14300, n=20) | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61) | |
| Razer Phone 2017 (Chrome 65) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998) (2425 - 4813, n=19) | |
| OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus (Samsung Browser 5.2) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=161, last 2 years) | |
| Apple iPhone 8 Plus | |
* ... smaller is better
| Razer Phone 2017 | OnePlus 5T | Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | Huawei Mate 10 Pro | Average 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 8% | -0% | 262% | 80% | 727% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 732 | 699 -5% | 788 8% | 732 0% | 696 ? -5% | 1847 ? 152% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 202.5 | 203.4 0% | 194.2 -4% | 208.7 3% | 224 ? 11% | 1436 ? 609% |
| Random Read 4KB | 142.5 | 138.1 -3% | 127.2 -11% | 132.3 -7% | 137.2 ? -4% | 277 ? 94% |
| Random Write 4KB | 14.3 | 20 40% | 15.27 7% | 164.4 1050% | 84.7 ? 492% | 308 ? 2054% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 79.4 | 71.1 ? -10% | 68.6 ? -14% | |||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 52.5 | 57.2 ? 9% | 52.2 ? -1% |
| Arena of Valor | |
| Razer Phone 2017 | |
| min | |
| high HD | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
| high HD | |
| Battle Bay | |
| Razer Phone 2017 | |
| half resolution | |
| full resolution | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
| full resolution | |
| Shadow Fight 3 | |
| Razer Phone 2017 | |
| minimal | |
| high | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
| high | |
| World of Tanks Blitz | |
| Razer Phone 2017 | |
| low AA:0x AF:0x | |
| high AA:0x AF:0x | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
| high AA:0x AF:0x | |
| Shadow Fight 3 | |||
| Configurações | Valor | ||
| high | 60 fps | ||
| minimal | 30 fps | ||
| Battle Bay | |||
| Configurações | Valor | ||
| half resolution | 121 fps | ||
| full resolution | 121 fps | ||
| Arena of Valor | |||
| Configurações | Valor | ||
| min | 62 fps | ||
| high HD | 61 fps | ||
| World of Tanks Blitz | |||
| Configurações | Valor | ||
| low, 0xAA, 0xAF | 91 fps | ||
| high, 0xAA, 0xAF | 91 fps | ||
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 32.7 °C / 91 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 32.8 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.7 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Razer Phone 2017 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 19.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 4% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 93% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 22% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 73% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.2% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (3.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.2% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 42% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 51% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 61% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 33% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0.15 / 0.21 Watt |
| Ocioso |  0.83 / 2.11 / 2.24 Watt |
| Carga |
4.94 / 9.08 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Razer Phone 2017 4000 mAh | Apple iPhone 8 Plus 2691 mAh | OnePlus 5T 3300 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus 3500 mAh | Huawei Mate 10 Pro 4000 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 1% | 27% | 32% | 22% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.83 | 0.72 13% | 0.58 30% | 0.68 18% | 0.85 -2% |
| Idle Average * | 2.11 | 2.45 -16% | 1.44 32% | 1.13 46% | 1.15 45% |
| Idle Maximum * | 2.24 | 2.52 -13% | 1.53 32% | 1.16 48% | 1.23 45% |
| Load Average * | 4.94 | 3.84 22% | 3.17 36% | 4.69 5% | 4.12 17% |
| Load Maximum * | 9.08 | 9.02 1% | 8.54 6% | 5.24 42% | 8.42 7% |
* ... smaller is better
| Razer Phone 2017 4000 mAh | Apple iPhone 8 Plus 2691 mAh | OnePlus 5T 3300 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus 3500 mAh | Huawei Mate 10 Pro 4000 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -14% | -6% | -3% | 7% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 762 | 657 -14% | 718 -6% | 736 -3% | 818 7% |
| Reader / Idle | 2085 | 1754 | 1565 | 1744 | |
| H.264 | 733 | 799 | 742 | 929 | |
| Load | 211 | 257 | 275 | 398 |
Pro
Contra
Antigamente, os jogadores ficavam trancados em seus quartos escuros até a chegada do Game Boy, o tataravô do Razer Phone. Hoje, o Razer Phone permite jogos em dispositivos móveis na estrada a 120 FPS com excelente som estéreo. A tela de alta resolução é brilhante o suficiente, a bateria dura o tempo suficiente, as câmeras estão no mesmo nível de outros smartphones de gama alta, e embora não seja particularmente barato, o Razer Phone ainda é consideravelmente mais barato do que o Samsung Galaxy S9 ou o iPhone 8.
O Razer Phone é um poderoso dispositivo de jogos de design conservador e de longa duração para a estrada.
As duas coisas que mais nos surpreenderam foram a falta do conector para fones de 3,5 mm e o fato de a Razer ter decidido não incluir um fone de ouvido na caixa. A qualidade das chamadas no fone de ouvido foi muito ruim, e o microfone distorceu nossas vozes muito rapidamente. O telefone também se afogou ligeiramente sob uso intenso. Tudo o que é muito minucioso, no final das contas, o Razer Phone é um telefone de alta qualidade por um preço justo, e certamente encontrará seu público não apenas entre os jogadores.
Razer Phone 2017
- 03/27/2018 v6 (old)
Florian Wimmer
Price comparison
