Breve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 93 %
iluminação com acumulador: 570 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.5 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 1.2 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
98.7% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.07
| Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Super AMOLED, 2220x1080, 6" | Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 Super AMOLED, 2220x1080, 5.6" | Nokia 7 Plus IPS, 2160x1080, 6" | Xiaomi Mi 6X LCD IPS, 2160x1080, 6" | Xiaomi Poco F1 IPS, 2246x1080, 6.2" | Honor 8X LCD IPS, 2340x1080, 6.5" | BQ Aquaris X2 IPS LCD, 2160x1080, 5.7" | Sony Xperia XA2 IPS, 1920x1080, 5.2" | Samsung Galaxy S8 Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 5.8" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -84% | -101% | -173% | -91% | -191% | -124% | -170% | -48% | |
| Brightness middle | 570 | 541 -5% | 458 -20% | 459 -19% | 489 -14% | 484 -15% | 631 11% | 513 -10% | 566 -1% |
| Brightness | 565 | 538 -5% | 463 -18% | 441 -22% | 486 -14% | 469 -17% | 622 10% | 506 -10% | 564 0% |
| Brightness Distribution | 93 | 96 3% | 92 -1% | 91 -2% | 93 0% | 93 0% | 96 3% | 93 0% | 94 1% |
| Black Level * | 0.22 | 0.47 | 0.34 | 0.55 | 0.61 | 0.42 | |||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.5 | 5.8 -287% | 4 -167% | 5.8 -287% | 3.8 -153% | 7.3 -387% | 5.5 -267% | 5 -233% | 2.7 -80% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 3.6 | 7.4 -106% | 10.7 -197% | 7.1 -97% | 11.1 -208% | 8.5 -136% | 11.4 -217% | 5.4 -50% | |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1.2 | 2.7 -125% | 4.7 -292% | 7.3 -508% | 4.4 -267% | 7.4 -517% | 5.6 -367% | 7.8 -550% | 3.1 -158% |
| Gamma | 2.07 106% | 2.07 106% | 2.19 100% | 2.28 96% | 2.22 99% | 2.16 102% | 2.38 92% | 2.2 100% | 2.15 102% |
| CCT | 6504 100% | 6570 99% | 7425 88% | 7984 81% | 7213 90% | 8534 76% | 7531 86% | 7964 82% | 6335 103% |
| Contrast | 2082 | 977 | 1438 | 880 | 1034 | 1221 | |||
| 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 detected | 240.4 Hz | ≤ 99 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 240.4 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 240.4 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 8743 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 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 |  |
| ↘ 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). | ||
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 | |
| Nokia 7 Plus | |
| Xiaomi Mi 6X | |
| Xiaomi Poco F1 | |
| Honor 8X | |
| BQ Aquaris X2 | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 7885 () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 158, n=170, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 | |
| Nokia 7 Plus | |
| Xiaomi Mi 6X | |
| Xiaomi Poco F1 | |
| Honor 8X | |
| BQ Aquaris X2 | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 7885 () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (8.3 - 341, n=170, last 2 years) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Xiaomi Poco F1 (Chrome 68) | |
| Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 6X (Chrome 67) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 (Chrome 64.0.3282.137) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (48 - 49.1, n=2) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 (Chrome 70) | |
| Honor 8X (Chrome 70) | |
| BQ Aquaris X2 (Chrome 67) | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 (Chrome 65.0.3325.109) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=203, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Poco F1 (Chrome 68) | |
| Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 6X (Chrome 67) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 (Chrome 64.0.3282.137) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (9165 - 9350, n=2) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 (Chrome 70) | |
| Honor 8X (Chrome 70) | |
| BQ Aquaris X2 (Chrome 67) | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 (Chrome 65.0.3325.109) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 (Chrome 65.0.3325.109) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 6X (Chrome 67) | |
| BQ Aquaris X2 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 (Chrome 64.0.3282.137) | |
| Honor 8X | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (4123 - 4275, n=2) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 (Chrome 70) | |
| Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60) | |
| Xiaomi Poco F1 (Chrome 68) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=160, last 2 years) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
| Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 6X (Chrome 67) | |
| Honor 8X (Chrome 70) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 (Chrome 70) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 7885 () | |
| BQ Aquaris X2 (Chrome 67) | |
| WebXPRT 2015 - Overall | |
| Xiaomi Poco F1 (Chrome 68) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 6X (Chrome 67) | |
| Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 (Chrome 70) | |
| BQ Aquaris X2 (Chrome 67) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 7885 (156 - 168, n=2) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 (Chrome 64.0.3282.137) | |
| Honor 8X (Chrome 70) | |
| Sony Xperia XA2 (Chrome 65.0.3325.109) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 | Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 | Nokia 7 Plus | Xiaomi Mi 6X | Xiaomi Poco F1 | Honor 8X | BQ Aquaris X2 | Sony Xperia XA2 | Average 64 GB eMMC Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -2% | 15% | 5% | 39% | 51% | 3% | -6% | 22% | 979% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 295.8 | 299.9 1% | 283.1 -4% | 272 -8% | 705 138% | 283.9 -4% | 270.5 -9% | 271.5 -8% | 274 ? -7% | 1847 ? 524% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 104.9 | 104.2 -1% | 211.6 102% | 203.7 94% | 155.6 48% | 170 62% | 188.7 80% | 127.4 21% | 176.2 ? 68% | 1436 ? 1269% |
| Random Read 4KB | 84 | 82.6 -2% | 54.7 -35% | 73 -13% | 101 20% | 49.54 -41% | 43.9 -48% | 43.07 -49% | 59.4 ? -29% | 277 ? 230% |
| Random Write 4KB | 15.45 | 14.69 -5% | 19.62 27% | 6.89 -55% | 17.81 15% | 59.9 288% | 14.4 -7% | 13.82 -11% | 32 ? 107% | 308 ? 1894% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 78.2 ? | 77.9 ? 0% | 82.2 5% | 85.3 ? 9% | 75.2 ? -4% | 82.9 ? 6% | 86 ? 10% | 77.4 ? -1% | ||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 64.4 ? | 62.3 ? -3% | 62.3 -3% | 65.6 ? 2% | 68.1 ? 6% | 62.3 ? -3% | 64.8 ? 1% | 58.3 ? -9% |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 34.8 °C / 95 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 35.8 °C / 96 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.1 °C / 81 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.6% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.2% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.3% 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, 6% similar, 32% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Xiaomi Mi 6X audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.3% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 20% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 71% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 42% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 51% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0.01 / 0.22 Watt |
| Ocioso |  0.71 / 1.36 / 1.47 Watt |
| Carga |
5.13 / 7.89 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 3300 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 3000 mAh | Nokia 7 Plus 3800 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 6X 3010 mAh | Xiaomi Poco F1 4000 mAh | Honor 8X 3750 mAh | BQ Aquaris X2 3100 mAh | Sony Xperia XA2 3300 mAh | Average Samsung Exynos 7885 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 21% | -9% | -7% | -15% | -24% | -14% | 19% | 10% | -19% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.71 | 0.67 6% | 0.65 8% | 0.65 8% | 0.65 8% | 0.92 -30% | 0.65 8% | 0.39 45% | 0.69 ? 3% | 0.895 ? -26% |
| Idle Average * | 1.36 | 1.02 25% | 1.76 -29% | 1.94 -43% | 1.97 -45% | 2.3 -69% | 2.24 -65% | 1.61 -18% | 1.19 ? 12% | 1.453 ? -7% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.47 | 1.1 25% | 1.78 -21% | 1.97 -34% | 2.01 -37% | 2.32 -58% | 2.26 -54% | 1.62 -10% | 1.285 ? 13% | 1.613 ? -10% |
| Load Average * | 5.13 | 3.86 25% | 4.47 13% | 4.65 9% | 4.29 16% | 4.37 15% | 3.87 25% | 3.12 39% | 4.5 ? 12% | 6.5 ? -27% |
| Load Maximum * | 7.89 | 5.97 24% | 9.13 -16% | 5.93 25% | 9.05 -15% | 6.13 22% | 6.8 14% | 4.92 38% | 6.93 ? 12% | 9.86 ? -25% |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 3300 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A8 2018 3000 mAh | Nokia 7 Plus 3800 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 6X 3010 mAh | Xiaomi Poco F1 4000 mAh | Honor 8X 3750 mAh | BQ Aquaris X2 3100 mAh | Sony Xperia XA2 3300 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 4% | -8% | -26% | 17% | 41% | 2% | 30% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1467 | 1546 5% | 1703 16% | 1046 -29% | 2088 42% | 2503 71% | ||
| H.264 | 836 | 908 9% | 706 -16% | 608 -27% | 936 12% | 766 -8% | ||
| WiFi v1.3 | 605 | 646 7% | 672 11% | 495 -18% | 808 34% | 852 41% | 617 2% | 886 46% |
| Load | 273 | 260 -5% | 158 -42% | 192 -30% | 220 -19% | 298 9% |
Pro
Contra
O Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018) se destaca em nosso teste com seu excelente painel Super AMOLED que pode se tornar muito brilhante, possui uma reprodução de cores extremamente precisa e ângulos de visão estáveis. Além disso, tem bons contraste graças ao valor de preto perfeito típico das telas OLED. Tudo somado, esta é uma tela que não tem igual nesta faixa de preço.
Estamos menos impressionados com o processador de gama média da Samsung. O Exynos 7885 mostra várias fraquezas ao lidar com cargas de trabalho diárias durante o nosso teste. O desempenho do sistema do Samsung SoC não consegue acompanhar a concorrência da Qualcomm. O Honor 8X equipado com o novo HiSilicon Kirin 710 também pode oferecer um desempenho mais consistente no dia a dia.
A figura de proa do Galaxy A7 (2018) é sua câmera tripla, que oferece grande versatilidade e qualidade fotográfica decente. O ângulo ultra-wide e a função Live Focus oferecem aos usuários opções interessantes, embora a última função possa ser um pouco decepcionante às vezes.
Como com o Honor 8X, ficamos nos perguntando por que a Samsung decidiu equipar seu modelo 2018 com um padrão microUSB antigo. Isso não faz sentido, especialmente considerando que o Galaxy A5 de 2017 já estava equipado com uma porta USB Type-C.
Os amantes das telas não chegarão perto do Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018), se estão procurando por um dispositivo adequado no segmento de preços de gama média.
Há muitas alternativas interessantes nesse segmento de gama média. Por exemplo, o poderoso Pocophone F1 ou o significantemente mais econômico campeão do preço-desempenho Xiaomi Mi A2. Caso o preço do Samsung Galaxy A7 (2018) caia um pouco, sua ótima tela e opções de câmera grande angular ainda fazem dele uma alternativa interessante.
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018
- 11/19/2018 v6 (old)
Marcus Herbrich
Price comparison
