Breve Análise do Smartphone Realme X50 Pro - Campeão do preço-desempenho?
Competing Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 86.1 % v7 (old) | 06/2020 | Realme X50 Pro SD 865, Adreno 650 | 205 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.44" | 2400x1080 | |
| 87.8 % v7 (old) | 06/2020 | Xiaomi Mi 10 SD 865, Adreno 650 | 208 g | 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2340x1080 | |
| 88.4 % v7 (old) | 06/2020 | OnePlus 8 SD 865, Adreno 650 | 180 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.55" | 2400x1080 | |
| 87.4 % v7 (old) | 04/2020 | Huawei P40 Kirin 990 5G, Mali-G76 MP16 | 175 g | 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.10" | 2340x1080 | |
| 81 % v7 (old) | 06/2020 | Motorola Edge SD 765, Adreno 620 | 190 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.70" | 2340x1080 | |
| 87.7 % v7 (old) | 03/2020 | Samsung Galaxy S20 Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11 | 163 g | 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.20" | 3200x1440 |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Huawei P40 | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| Motorola Edge | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Huawei P40 | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 | |
| Motorola Edge | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 97 %
iluminação com acumulador: 679 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.2 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 4.1 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
92.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.28
| Realme X50 Pro OLED, 2400x1080, 6.4" | Xiaomi Mi 10 Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.7" | OnePlus 8 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.6" | Huawei P40 AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.1" | Motorola Edge AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.7" | Samsung Galaxy S20 AMOLED, 3200x1440, 6.2" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 36% | 37% | 7% | -32% | 19% | |
| Brightness middle | 679 | 786 16% | 778 15% | 583 -14% | 427 -37% | 745 10% |
| Brightness | 690 | 791 15% | 783 13% | 593 -14% | 438 -37% | 740 7% |
| Brightness Distribution | 97 | 96 -1% | 95 -2% | 94 -3% | 94 -3% | 97 0% |
| Black Level * | ||||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 3.2 | 1.1 66% | 0.9 72% | 3.03 5% | 5.34 -67% | 2.67 17% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 6.2 | 2.2 65% | 2.2 65% | 5.33 14% | 9.33 -50% | 4.52 27% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 4.1 | 1.8 56% | 1.7 59% | 2 51% | 4 2% | 2 51% |
| Gamma | 2.28 96% | 2.26 97% | 2.25 98% | 2.301 96% | 2.315 95% | 2.092 105% |
| CCT | 6604 98% | 6315 103% | 6481 100% | 6621 98% | 7221 90% | 6240 104% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 367.6 Hz | ≤ 99 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 367.6 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 99 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 367.6 Hz is relatively high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. However, there are reports that some users are still sensitive to PWM at 500 Hz and above, so be aware. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8715 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 1.2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 1.2 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. » 9 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 3.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 1.2 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. » 10 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). | ||
| Geekbench 4.4 | |
| 64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value) | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (4261 - 4304, n=5) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (844 - 9574, n=84, last 2 years) | |
| 64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value) | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (13186 - 13589, n=5) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4134 - 34246, n=84, last 2 years) | |
| Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value) | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (9443 - 9739, n=5) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (5192 - 28121, n=61, last 2 years) | |
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Huawei P40 | |
| Motorola Edge | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (10990 - 19989, n=22) | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Huawei P40 | |
| Motorola Edge | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (9202 - 15299, n=23) | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Huawei P40 | |
| Motorola Edge | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (43 - 83, n=24) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 166, n=174, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Huawei P40 | |
| Motorola Edge | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (67 - 103, n=24) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (8.3 - 365, n=174, last 2 years) | |
| AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
| OnePlus 8 | |
| Huawei P40 | |
| Motorola Edge | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (527301 - 631025, n=24) | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=169, last 2 years) | |
| Realme X50 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (45.2 - 77, n=20) | |
| Huawei P40 (Huawei Browser 10.1) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 (Chrome 80) | |
| OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| Motorola Edge (Chrome 81) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Realme X50 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (74.2 - 145.1, n=21) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| Huawei P40 (Huawei Browser 10.1) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 (Chrome 80) | |
| Motorola Edge (Chrome 81) | |
| OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=152, last 2 years) | |
| Realme X50 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (30.6 - 74.5, n=19) | |
| Huawei P40 (Huawei Browser 10.1) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 (Chome 80) | |
| OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
| Motorola Edge (Chome 81) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (97 - 127, n=23) | |
| Realme X50 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
| OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 (Chrome 80) | |
| Huawei P40 (Huawei Browser 10.1) | |
| Motorola Edge (Chrome 81) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=210, last 2 years) | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (14606 - 31224, n=23) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| Huawei P40 (Huawei Browser 10.1) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 (Chrome 80) | |
| Motorola Edge (Chrome 81) | |
| OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Motorola Edge (Chrome 81) | |
| OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 (Chrome 80) | |
| Huawei P40 (Huawei Browser 10.1) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (1623 - 2911, n=24) | |
| Realme X50 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
| Realme X50 Pro | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=167, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Realme X50 Pro | Xiaomi Mi 10 | OnePlus 8 | Huawei P40 | Motorola Edge | Samsung Galaxy S20 | Average 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -12% | -7% | -30% | -41% | -11% | -17% | 37% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 1756 | 1498 -15% | 1707 -3% | 1592 -9% | 941 -46% | 1542 -12% | 1547 ? -12% | 1887 ? 7% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 756 | 680 -10% | 748 -1% | 212.9 -72% | 451.7 -40% | 670 -11% | 575 ? -24% | 1471 ? 95% |
| Random Read 4KB | 229.4 | 207 -10% | 215 -6% | 189.4 -17% | 150.5 -34% | 205.3 -11% | 210 ? -8% | 278 ? 21% |
| Random Write 4KB | 252 | 215.9 -14% | 203.9 -19% | 197 -22% | 145.2 -42% | 228.1 -9% | 188.5 ? -25% | 311 ? 23% |
PUBG mobile
Asphalt 9 Legends
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 31.8 °C / 89 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 29.9 °C / 86 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.3 °C / 83 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Realme X50 Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.1% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 33% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 59% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 52% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 40% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Xiaomi Mi 10 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.2% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (2.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 27% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 65% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 47% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 46% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0.03 / 0.49 Watt |
| Ocioso |  1 / 1.77 / 1.86 Watt |
| Carga |
4.23 / 9.13 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Realme X50 Pro 4200 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 10 4780 mAh | OnePlus 8 4300 mAh | Huawei P40 3800 mAh | Motorola Edge 4500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S20 4000 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 19% | -2% | 1% | 4% | -4% | -20% | -4% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 1 | 0.53 47% | 0.9 10% | 1 -0% | 1 -0% | 0.9 10% | 1.133 ? -13% | 0.883 ? 12% |
| Idle Average * | 1.77 | 1.46 18% | 2.3 -30% | 1.9 -7% | 1.4 21% | 1.5 15% | 2.23 ? -26% | 1.467 ? 17% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.86 | 1.52 18% | 2.33 -25% | 2.4 -29% | 2 -8% | 2 -8% | 2.45 ? -32% | 1.621 ? 13% |
| Load Average * | 4.23 | 3.83 9% | 3.5 17% | 3.5 17% | 4.8 -13% | 4.8 -13% | 5.26 ? -24% | 6.55 ? -55% |
| Load Maximum * | 9.13 | 8.89 3% | 7.68 16% | 6.9 24% | 7.3 20% | 11.5 -26% | 9.68 ? -6% | 9.9 ? -8% |
* ... smaller is better
| Realme X50 Pro 4200 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 10 4780 mAh | OnePlus 8 4300 mAh | Huawei P40 3800 mAh | Motorola Edge 4500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S20 4000 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 7% | 5% | 16% | 31% | 14% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1507 | 1789 19% | 1374 -9% | 2063 37% | 2515 67% | 2105 40% |
| H.264 | 1029 | 1126 9% | 1096 7% | 1052 2% | 1197 16% | 809 -21% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 775 | 662 -15% | 1045 35% | 806 4% | 888 15% | 726 -6% |
| Load | 194 | 226 16% | 168 -13% | 236 22% | 240 24% | 279 44% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto Realme X50 Pro - Smartphone topo de gama elegante
O X50 Pro é um smartphone muito agradável esteticamente e o design mate e com várias camadas da parte traseira oferece um visual particularmente bonito. No entanto, a excelente aparência é manchada pelo módulo de câmera muito grande. Devido à qualidade das selfies de grande angular, a praticidade da segunda lente na frente está em questão e um furo mais sutil na tela poderia ter sido uma solução mais elegante. Semelhante à ótica grande angular na frente, o módulo ultra grande angular na parte traseira decepciona e não pode ser igual ao dos smartphones concorrentes em termos de qualidade. O mesmo vale para a lente telefoto e, em menor grau, para a câmera principal. Por 750 Euros (~US$ 844), os compradores merecem mais quando se trata da qualidade geral das câmeras.
Embora exista muito o que gostar sobre o smartphone Realme X50 Pro, o preço sugerido pelo fabricante chinês é muito alto devido à forte concorrência.
Com bons alto-falantes estéreo, um belo painel OLED de 90 Hz e hardware poderoso, que traz suas próprias desvantagens na forma de quedas esporádicas de desempenho que não ocorrem com alternativas de gama alta, o X50 Pro ainda é um bom telefone.
Realme X50 Pro
- 08/31/2022 v7 (old)
Marcus Herbrich
Price comparison
