Breve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 96 %
iluminação com acumulador: 553 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.2 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 1.7 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
97% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.06
| Samsung Galaxy A9 2018 OLED, 2220x1080, 6.3" | Xiaomi Poco F1 IPS, 2246x1080, 6.2" | OnePlus 6T Optic AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | Samsung Galaxy S9 Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 5.8" | Huawei P20 LTPS, 2240x1080, 5.8" | LG G7 ThinQ IPS, 3120x1440, 6.1" | BQ Aquaris X2 Pro LTPS, 2160x1080, 5.7" | Nokia 7 Plus IPS, 2160x1080, 6" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -50% | -8% | 9% | 28% | -57% | -84% | -57% | |
| Brightness middle | 553 | 489 -12% | 437 -21% | 529 -4% | 753 36% | 974 76% | 675 22% | 458 -17% |
| Brightness | 553 | 486 -12% | 442 -20% | 527 -5% | 748 35% | 975 76% | 650 18% | 463 -16% |
| Brightness Distribution | 96 | 93 -3% | 95 -1% | 96 0% | 96 0% | 96 0% | 92 -4% | 92 -4% |
| Black Level * | 0.34 | 0.37 | 0.49 | 0.46 | 0.22 | |||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 2.2 | 3.8 -73% | 2.21 -0% | 1.4 36% | 1.3 41% | 5.4 -145% | 5.9 -168% | 4 -82% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 5.1 | 7.1 -39% | 4.27 16% | 4 22% | 2.3 55% | 13.1 -157% | 9.5 -86% | 7.4 -45% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1.7 | 4.4 -159% | 2.1 -24% | 1.6 6% | 1.7 -0% | 5 -194% | 6.6 -288% | 4.7 -176% |
| Gamma | 2.06 107% | 2.22 99% | 2.307 95% | 2.16 102% | 2.18 101% | 2.31 95% | 2.36 93% | 2.19 100% |
| CCT | 6434 101% | 7213 90% | 6353 102% | 6358 102% | 66.76 9736% | 7480 87% | 7846 83% | 7425 88% |
| Contrast | 1438 | 2035 | 1988 | 1467 | 2082 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 250 Hz | ≤ 99 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 250 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 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 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 | ↗ 2.4 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 2.4 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). | ||
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66) | |
| OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70) | |
| Xiaomi Poco F1 (Chrome 68) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
| Huawei P20 (Chrome 66.0.3359.126) | |
| Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (45.3 - 55.5, n=12) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A9 2018 (Chrome 70) | |
| BQ Aquaris X2 Pro (Chrome 67) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=204, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70) | |
| LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
| Xiaomi Poco F1 (Chrome 68) | |
| Huawei P20 (Chrome 66.0.3359.126) | |
| Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A9 2018 (Chrome 70) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (8463 - 10945, n=14) | |
| BQ Aquaris X2 Pro (Chrome 67) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (3796 - 4769, n=13) | |
| BQ Aquaris X2 Pro (Chrome 67) | |
| Huawei P20 (Chrome 66.0.3359.126) | |
| Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A9 2018 (Chrome 70) | |
| Xiaomi Poco F1 (Chrome 68) | |
| LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66) | |
| OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=161, last 2 years) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
| LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66) | |
| Huawei P20 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
| Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A9 2018 (Chrome 70) | |
| BQ Aquaris X2 Pro (Chrome 67) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (47 - 63, n=9) | |
| WebXPRT 2015 - Overall | |
| OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70) | |
| LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66) | |
| Xiaomi Poco F1 (Chrome 68) | |
| Huawei P20 (Chrome 66.0.3359.126) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (159 - 182, n=8) | |
| Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A9 2018 (Chrome 70) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
| BQ Aquaris X2 Pro (Chrome 67) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy A9 2018 | Xiaomi Poco F1 | OnePlus 6T | Samsung Galaxy S9 | Huawei P20 | LG G7 ThinQ | BQ Aquaris X2 Pro | Nokia 7 Plus | Average 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 8% | 27% | 24% | 209% | 15% | -15% | -11% | 122% | 641% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 426.6 | 705 65% | 735 72% | 815 91% | 827 94% | 695 63% | 280.8 -34% | 283.1 -34% | 760 ? 78% | 1847 ? 333% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 194.6 | 155.6 -20% | 204.4 5% | 206.9 6% | 193.6 -1% | 176.4 -9% | 204.8 5% | 211.6 9% | 297 ? 53% | 1436 ? 638% |
| Random Read 4KB | 116.8 | 101 -14% | 138.5 19% | 131 12% | 147 26% | 110.5 -5% | 51.3 -56% | 54.7 -53% | 152.9 ? 31% | 277 ? 137% |
| Random Write 4KB | 19.79 | 17.81 -10% | 22 11% | 23.07 17% | 161.5 716% | 23.26 18% | 15.43 -22% | 19.62 -1% | 131.6 ? 565% | 308 ? 1456% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 73.7 ? | 85.3 ? 16% | 79.2 ? 7% | 84.7 ? 15% | 83.3 ? 13% | 82.2 12% | 76 ? 3% | |||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 59.7 ? | 65.6 ? 10% | 67.2 ? 13% | 62.7 ? 5% | 61.1 ? 2% | 62.3 4% | 59.6 ? 0% |
PUBG Molbile
Asphalt 9 Legends
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 33.8 °C / 93 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 33.4 °C / 92 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.2 °C / 79 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 35% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 57% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 55% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 38% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Xiaomi Poco F1 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.2% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (10.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 50% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 41% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 68% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 25% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0.02 / 0.28 Watt |
| Ocioso |  1.06 / 1.94 / 1.98 Watt |
| Carga |
3.56 / 7.49 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Samsung Galaxy A9 2018 3800 mAh | Xiaomi Poco F1 4000 mAh | OnePlus 6T 3700 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S9 3000 mAh | Huawei P20 3400 mAh | LG G7 ThinQ 3000 mAh | BQ Aquaris X2 Pro 3100 mAh | Nokia 7 Plus 3800 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -1% | 8% | 30% | -11% | -11% | -2% | 2% | -29% | -11% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 1.06 | 0.65 39% | 0.7 34% | 0.65 39% | 0.67 37% | 1.16 -9% | 0.63 41% | 0.65 39% | 1.052 ? 1% | 0.895 ? 16% |
| Idle Average * | 1.94 | 1.97 -2% | 1.1 43% | 0.81 58% | 2.05 -6% | 1.98 -2% | 2.16 -11% | 1.76 9% | 2.62 ? -35% | 1.453 ? 25% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.98 | 2.01 -2% | 2.1 -6% | 0.92 54% | 2.11 -7% | 2.07 -5% | 2.18 -10% | 1.78 10% | 2.88 ? -45% | 1.613 ? 19% |
| Load Average * | 3.56 | 4.29 -21% | 4.2 -18% | 4.76 -34% | 6.15 -73% | 4.51 -27% | 4.48 -26% | 4.47 -26% | 5.1 ? -43% | 6.5 ? -83% |
| Load Maximum * | 7.49 | 9.05 -21% | 8.3 -11% | 5.16 31% | 8.09 -8% | 8.3 -11% | 7.87 -5% | 9.13 -22% | 9.08 ? -21% | 9.86 ? -32% |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy A9 2018 3800 mAh | Xiaomi Poco F1 4000 mAh | OnePlus 6T 3700 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S9 3000 mAh | Huawei P20 3400 mAh | LG G7 ThinQ 3000 mAh | BQ Aquaris X2 Pro 3100 mAh | Nokia 7 Plus 3800 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 9% | 13% | -31% | 13% | -1% | -25% | -15% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1780 | 2088 17% | 1936 9% | 1182 -34% | 1888 6% | 1662 -7% | 1374 -23% | 1703 -4% |
| H.264 | 1005 | 936 -7% | 903 -10% | 609 -39% | 810 -19% | 908 -10% | 658 -35% | 706 -30% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 689 | 808 17% | 865 26% | 474 -31% | 818 19% | 591 -14% | 605 -12% | 672 -2% |
| Load | 205 | 220 7% | 261 27% | 164 -20% | 295 44% | 260 27% | 145 -29% | 158 -23% |
Pro
Contra
Com o seu impressionante vidro traseiro, a aparência externa do Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018) é um verdadeiro destaque. Sua qualidade de fabricação também é muito boa, embora nosso dispositivo de teste, em particular, tenha algumas pequenas falhas. Como o fabricante coreano parece estar fazendo mais frequentemente, a Samsung escolheu equipar seu mais novo membro da família na série Galaxy A com um painel OLED muito bom. Em termos de reprodução de cores e brilho, o Galaxy A9 (2018) compete no topo da sua liga. No entanto, o mesmo não pode ser dito do desempenho do sistema no padrão de fábrica. Devido às suas animações pré-instaladas, o smartphone de gama média se sente um pouco lento, o único remédio aqui é se livrar deles no menu de opções do desenvolvedor.
Devido às suas animações pré-instaladas, o smartphone de gama média se sente um pouco lento, o único remédio aqui é para se livrar deles no menu de opções do desenvolvedor. Claro, nem todos os smartphones de gama alta precisam ser comparados com o Xiaomi Pocophone F1, mas o fabricante chinês conseguiu equipar seu dispositivo de gama média com o atual chip de gama alta da Qualcomm. Como resultado, com um preço de varejo recomendado de 600 Euros (~$680), a Samsung poderia ter pelo menos equipado o Galaxy A9 (2018) com o chip de maior desempenho do ano passado - considerando que a empresa optou um SoC de 2017 em primeiro lugar.
O Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018) é um bom e muito atraente smartphone de gama média - mas ao preço atual de cerca de 480 Euros (~$550; versão internacional ~$525), existem alternativas melhores no mercado.
O ponto de venda exclusivo do Samsung Galaxy A9 (2018) - a câmera quádrupla na parte de trás - pode ser usada para uma ampla gama de aplicações, graças às suas quatro lentes diferentes. Combina todas as vantagens habituais das multi-câmaras (efeito bokeh, ultra grande angular, zoom ótico) num único dispositivo. No entanto, nenhuma conclusão deve ser tirada com base no preço de varejo recomendado quando se trata da qualidade da câmera principal. A câmera é muito rápida, mas em termos de qualidade de imagem, ela não tem desempenho melhor do que a média de um smartphone de gama média.
Samsung Galaxy A9 2018
- 12/22/2018 v6 (old)
Marcus Herbrich
Price comparison
