Breve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy M21 - Simples, mas bom
Comparison Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 79.7 % v7 (old) | 09/2020 | Samsung Galaxy M21 Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3 | 188 g | 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.40" | 2340x1080 | |
| 75.1 % v7 (old) | 06/2020 | Sony Xperia L4 Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320 | 178 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.20" | 1680x720 | |
| 77.3 % v7 (old) | 08/2020 | Oppo A72 SD 665, Adreno 610 | 192 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
| 78.8 % v7 (old) | 06/2020 | Samsung Galaxy A41 Helio P65, Mali-G52 MP2 | 152 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.10" | 2400x1080 | |
| 80.7 % v7 (old) | 05/2020 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S SD 720G, Adreno 618 | 209 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy M21 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Sony Xperia L4 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy M21 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Sony Xperia L4 | |
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.
Main camera: FlowersMain camera: CityscapeMain camera: Low-light photographyUltra wide-angle
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 95 %
iluminação com acumulador: 617 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.11 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 2.6 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
141.3% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.073
| Samsung Galaxy M21 Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | Sony Xperia L4 IPS, 1680x720, 6.2" | Oppo A72 IPS LCD, 2400x1080, 6.5" | Samsung Galaxy A41 Super AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.1" | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S IPS, 2400x1080, 6.7" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -103% | -100% | -18% | -46% | |
| Brightness middle | 617 | 429 -30% | 505 -18% | 554 -10% | 622 1% |
| Brightness | 614 | 404 -34% | 482 -21% | 559 -9% | 612 0% |
| Brightness Distribution | 95 | 92 -3% | 93 -2% | 92 -3% | 94 -1% |
| Black Level * | 0.26 | 0.55 | 0.56 | ||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 2.11 | 6.14 -191% | 6.3 -199% | 2 5% | 3.98 -89% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 3.41 | 10.51 -208% | 10.1 -196% | 7.7 -126% | 7.33 -115% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.6 | 6.6 -154% | 6.8 -162% | 1.6 38% | 4.5 -73% |
| Gamma | 2.073 106% | 2.23 99% | 2.29 96% | 2.11 104% | 2.206 100% |
| CCT | 6921 94% | 8346 78% | 8161 80% | 6589 99% | 7361 88% |
| Contrast | 1650 | 918 | 1111 | ||
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 114.9 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 215.5 Hz |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 215.5 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 215.5 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 8710 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 5 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 3 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 18 % 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 | ||
| 10 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 5 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 5 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 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 20 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). | ||
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M21 | |
| Sony Xperia L4 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (5777 - 6697, n=7) | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M21 | |
| Sony Xperia L4 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (5080 - 5925, n=7) | |
| GFXBench 3.0 | |
| on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M21 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (15 - 24, n=7) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 166, n=174, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M21 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (17 - 26, n=7) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (12 - 502, n=174, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M21 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (8.9 - 14, n=7) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 166, n=174, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M21 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (10 - 16, n=7) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (8.3 - 365, n=174, last 2 years) | |
| AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M21 | |
| Oppo A72 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (152185 - 187087, n=7) | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=169, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 (Chrome 83.0.4103.101) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M21 (Chrome 85) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (27.5 - 30.6, n=7) | |
| Oppo A72 (Chrome 83) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 (Chrome 83.0.4103.101) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (47.5 - 51.9, n=7) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M21 (Chrome 85) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=152, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chome 81) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (26.6 - 30.5, n=7) | |
| Oppo A72 (Chrome 83) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 (Chrome 83.0.4103.101) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M21 (Chome 85) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M21 (Chrome 85) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (46 - 57, n=7) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 (Chrome 83.0.4103.101) | |
| Oppo A72 (Chrome 83) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=210, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 (Chrome 83.0.4103.101) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M21 (Chrome 85) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (7442 - 10687, n=7) | |
| Oppo A72 (Chrome 83) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (4332 - 6212, n=7) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M21 (Chrome 85) | |
| Oppo A72 (Chrome 83) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A41 (Chrome 83.0.4103.101) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=167, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy M21 | Sony Xperia L4 | Oppo A72 | Samsung Galaxy A41 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | Average 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -30% | -8% | -15% | 1% | 1% | 305% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 487.8 | 293.4 -40% | 504 3% | 299.9 -39% | 496.6 2% | 696 ? 43% | 1887 ? 287% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 192.7 | 165 -14% | 234.6 22% | 211.1 10% | 214.8 11% | 224 ? 16% | 1471 ? 663% |
| Random Read 4KB | 126 | 61.2 -51% | 135.9 8% | 84 -33% | 137 9% | 137.2 ? 9% | 278 ? 121% |
| Random Write 4KB | 124.2 | 22.5 -82% | 152.9 23% | 72.5 -42% | 123.6 0% | 84.7 ? -32% | 311 ? 150% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 77.9 ? | 83.5 ? 7% | 37.76 ? -52% | 83 ? 7% | 74.5 ? -4% | 68.6 ? -12% | |
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 62.2 ? | 62.5 ? 0% | 31.2 ? -50% | 67 ? 8% | 54.9 ? -12% | 52.2 ? -16% |
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 42.5 °C / 109 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 39.2 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.8 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Samsung Galaxy M21 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 69% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 69% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 69% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (119.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 87% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 3% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 96% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Samsung Galaxy A41 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.9% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 9.7% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (27.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 67% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 27% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 81% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 15% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0 / 0.1 Watt |
| Ocioso |  1.2 / 1.8 / 2.1 Watt |
| Carga |
6.2 / 7.9 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Samsung Galaxy M21 6000 mAh | Oppo A72 5000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A41 3500 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S 5020 mAh | Average Samsung Exynos 9611 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 20% | 29% | -8% | -11% | 7% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 1.2 | 0.7 42% | 0.96 20% | 1.5 -25% | 1.173 ? 2% | 0.883 ? 26% |
| Idle Average * | 1.8 | 1.97 -9% | 1.57 13% | 2.1 -17% | 2.28 ? -27% | 1.467 ? 18% |
| Idle Maximum * | 2.1 | 1.98 6% | 1.61 23% | 2.5 -19% | 2.86 ? -36% | 1.621 ? 23% |
| Load Average * | 6.2 | 3.83 38% | 2.93 53% | 5.2 16% | 5.97 ? 4% | 6.58 ? -6% |
| Load Maximum * | 7.9 | 6.2 22% | 4.97 37% | 7.5 5% | 7.83 ? 1% | 9.91 ? -25% |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy M21 6000 mAh | Sony Xperia L4 3580 mAh | Oppo A72 5000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A41 3500 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S 5020 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -40% | -22% | -26% | -5% | |
| Reader / Idle | 2297 | 1843 -20% | 2263 -1% | ||
| H.264 | 1352 | 998 -26% | 1269 -6% | ||
| WiFi v1.3 | 1298 | 783 -40% | 1018 -22% | 650 -50% | 1187 -9% |
| Load | 289 | 268 -7% | 279 -3% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto – Para quem procura algo sólido
O Samsung Galaxy M21 oferece um sistema de câmera medíocre e um nível de desempenho medíocre. Outros fabricantes estão perseguindo especificações e colocando ênfase no desempenho da câmera. A Samsung constrói apenas smartphones sólidos, que não têm fraquezas e oferecem alguns recursos especiais além.
O Galaxy M21 está no lugar exato, que smartphones muito mais expressivos com bateria muito boa e telas OLED brilhantes costumavam ocupar.
O Samsung Galaxy M21 é um smartphone sólido como uma rocha, de gama média inferior, com uma tela excelente e bateria com boa duração.
O Samsung Galaxy M21 é um smartphone sólido como uma rocha, de gama média inferior, com uma tela excelente e bateria com boa duração. Não é tão eficiente em termos de energia ou poderoso quanto os SoCs da concorrência, mas ainda oferece um nível de desempenho bastante decente.
No dia-a-dia, o Galaxy M21 é bom, e traz para a mesa tudo que um smartphone dessa faixa de preço deveria oferecer.
Samsung Galaxy M21
- 08/31/2022 v7 (old)
Florian Schmitt
Price comparison
