Breve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy M30s: Uma enorme bateria a um preço acessível
Device comparison
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
79.8 % v7 (old) | 12/2019 | Samsung Galaxy M30s Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3 | 188 g | 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.40" | 2340x1080 | |
79.2 % v7 (old) | 11/2019 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 SD 665, Adreno 610 | 190 g | 128 GB eMMC Flash | 6.30" | 2340x1080 | |
78.4 % v7 (old) | 11/2019 | Motorola Moto G8 Plus SD 665, Adreno 610 | 188 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.30" | 2280x1080 | |
78.4 % v7 (old) | 09/2019 | Xiaomi Mi A3 SD 665, Adreno 610 | 173.8 g | 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.09" | 1560x720 | |
79.5 % v6 (old) | 03/2019 | Samsung Galaxy M20 Exynos 7904, Mali-G71 MP2 | 186 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.30" | 2340x1080 |
Os Top 10
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Multimídia
» Os Top 10 Portáteis de Jogos
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Leves para Jogos
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Acessíveis de Escritório/Empresariais
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Premium de Escritório/Empresariais
» Os Top 10 dos Portáteis Workstation
» Os Top 10 Subportáteis
» Os Top 10 Ultrabooks
» Os Top 10 Conversíveis
» Os Top 10 Tablets
» Os Top 10 Smartphones
» A melhores Telas de Portáteis Analisadas Pela Notebookcheck
» Top 10 dos portáteis abaixo dos 500 Euros da Notebookcheck
» Top 10 dos Portáteis abaixo dos 300 Euros
Size Comparison
Networking | |
iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
Samsung Galaxy M30s | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 | |
Xiaomi Mi A3 | |
Motorola Moto G8 Plus | |
Samsung Galaxy M20 | |
iperf3 receive AX12 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 | |
Samsung Galaxy M30s | |
Motorola Moto G8 Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi A3 | |
Samsung Galaxy M20 |
|
iluminação: 95 %
iluminação com acumulador: 600 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.5 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 2 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
98.4% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.013
Samsung Galaxy M30s Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 IPS, 2340x1080, 6.3" | Motorola Moto G8 Plus IPS, 2280x1080, 6.3" | Xiaomi Mi A3 AMOLED, 1560x720, 6.1" | Samsung Galaxy M20 PLS TFT, 2340x1080, 6.3" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | 22% | -56% | -70% | -73% | |
Brightness middle | 600 | 656 9% | 597 0% | 348 -42% | 452 -25% |
Brightness | 597 | 643 8% | 596 0% | 355 -41% | 445 -25% |
Brightness Distribution | 95 | 95 0% | 93 -2% | 91 -4% | 92 -3% |
Black Level * | 0.54 | 0.52 | 0.41 | ||
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 2.5 | 1.1 56% | 5.93 -137% | 5.86 -134% | 5.3 -112% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 7.17 | 2.4 67% | 9.42 -31% | 15.6 -118% | 9.5 -32% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2 | 2.2 -10% | 5.3 -165% | 3.6 -80% | 6.8 -240% |
Gamma | 2.013 109% | 2.2 100% | 2.232 99% | 2.232 99% | 2.23 99% |
CCT | 6399 102% | 6263 104% | 7632 85% | 7051 92% | 8355 78% |
Contrast | 1215 | 1148 | 1102 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 118 Hz | ||
The display backlight flickers at 118 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 118 Hz is very low, so the flickering may cause eyestrain and headaches after extended use. 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 | ||
---|---|---|
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 M30s | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 | |
Motorola Moto G8 Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi A3 | |
Samsung Galaxy M20 | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (5777 - 6697, n=7) | |
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy M30s | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 | |
Motorola Moto G8 Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi A3 | |
Samsung Galaxy M20 | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (5080 - 5925, n=7) |
Basemark GPU 1.1 | |
1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy M30s | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 () | |
Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy M30s | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 | |
Xiaomi Mi A3 | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 () | |
1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy M30s | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 | |
Xiaomi Mi A3 | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 () |
VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy M30s | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 | |
Xiaomi Mi A3 | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 () | |
Average of class Smartphone (2523 - 10071, n=6, last 2 years) |
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=169, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Mi A3 (Chrome 76) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 (Chrome 78) | |
Motorola Moto G8 Plus (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy M30s (Chrome 78) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (27.5 - 30.6, n=7) | |
Samsung Galaxy M20 (Samsung Brwoser 9.2) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Samsung Galaxy M30s (Chrome 78) | |
Xiaomi Mi A3 (Chrome 76) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (47.5 - 51.9, n=7) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 (Chrome 78) | |
Motorola Moto G8 Plus (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy M20 (Samsung Browser 9.2) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=152, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy M30s (Chrome 78) | |
Motorola Moto G8 Plus (Chrome 78) | |
Xiaomi Mi A3 (Chome 76) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (26.6 - 30.5, n=7) | |
Samsung Galaxy M20 |
WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Mi A3 (Chrome 76) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (46 - 57, n=7) | |
Samsung Galaxy M20 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 (Chrome 78) | |
Motorola Moto G8 Plus (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy M30s (Chrome 78) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=210, last 2 years) | |
Samsung Galaxy M30s (Chrome 78) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (7442 - 10687, n=7) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 (Chrome 78) | |
Xiaomi Mi A3 (Chrome 76) | |
Motorola Moto G8 Plus (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy M20 |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (4332 - 6212, n=7) | |
Xiaomi Mi A3 (Chrome 76) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 (Chrome 78) | |
Motorola Moto G8 Plus (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy M30s (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy M20 | |
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=167, last 2 years) |
* ... smaller is better
Samsung Galaxy M30s | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 | Motorola Moto G8 Plus | Xiaomi Mi A3 | Samsung Galaxy M20 | Average 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | -24% | -17% | -8% | -28% | 1% | 299% | |
Sequential Read 256KB | 483.6 | 297.6 -38% | 302.5 -37% | 502 4% | 300 -38% | 696 ? 44% | 1887 ? 290% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 190.7 | 160.5 -16% | 217.4 14% | 184 -4% | 137 -28% | 224 ? 17% | 1471 ? 671% |
Random Read 4KB | 133.8 | 84.8 -37% | 59.9 -55% | 126.9 -5% | 64 -52% | 137.2 ? 3% | 278 ? 108% |
Random Write 4KB | 137.1 | 91.2 -33% | 124.9 -9% | 117.4 -14% | 44 -68% | 84.7 ? -38% | 311 ? 127% |
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 74.2 ? | 71.6 ? -4% | 72.6 ? -2% | 67.8 ? -9% | 81.5 ? 10% | 68.6 ? -8% | |
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 61.1 ? | 52.8 ? -14% | 52.2 ? -15% | 50.1 ? -18% | 65.3 ? 7% | 52.2 ? -15% |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 36 °C / 97 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 33.9 °C / 93 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 M30s audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 66.3% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 66.3% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 66.3% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (119.6% 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 M20 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 31.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.1% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 28% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 63% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 48% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 44% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
desligado | 0 / 0.2 Watt |
Ocioso | 1 / 1.9 / 2.4 Watt |
Carga |
5 / 6.3 Watt |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Samsung Galaxy M30s 6000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 4000 mAh | Motorola Moto G8 Plus 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi A3 4030 mAh | Samsung Galaxy M20 5000 mAh | Average Samsung Exynos 9611 | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | 21% | -30% | -5% | 5% | -20% | -4% | |
Idle Minimum * | 1 | 0.62 38% | 1.7 -70% | 0.8 20% | 0.94 6% | 1.173 ? -17% | 0.883 ? 12% |
Idle Average * | 1.9 | 1.77 7% | 2.3 -21% | 2 -5% | 2.37 -25% | 2.28 ? -20% | 1.467 ? 23% |
Idle Maximum * | 2.4 | 1.8 25% | 3.5 -46% | 3.3 -38% | 2.42 -1% | 2.86 ? -19% | 1.621 ? 32% |
Load Average * | 5 | 3.42 32% | 4.7 6% | 4.1 18% | 3.83 23% | 5.97 ? -19% | 6.55 ? -31% |
Load Maximum * | 6.3 | 6.14 3% | 7.5 -19% | 7.7 -22% | 5.07 20% | 7.83 ? -24% | 9.9 ? -57% |
* ... smaller is better
Samsung Galaxy M30s 6000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 4000 mAh | Motorola Moto G8 Plus 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi A3 4030 mAh | Samsung Galaxy M20 5000 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | -25% | -14% | -17% | -15% | |
Reader / Idle | 2206 | 2139 -3% | 2002 -9% | 1724 -22% | 1904 -14% |
H.264 | 1269 | 859 -32% | 996 -22% | 1023 -19% | 1121 -12% |
WiFi v1.3 | 1154 | 824 -29% | 980 -15% | 985 -15% | 928 -20% |
Load | 336 | 217 -35% | 302 -10% | 297 -12% | 288 -14% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto - Finalizado e recomendável
O Samsung Galaxy M30s é um aparelho acessível, com poucos compromissos. Nossa unidade de teste possui excelente duração da bateria, armazenamento rápido, muita RAM e é construída de forma robusta, apesar da tampa traseira de plástico.
O dispositivo também possui Wi-Fi comparativamente rápido, enquanto a precisão do seu módulo GPS nos impressionou. Da mesma forma, seu painel AMOLED de 6,4 polegadas deve oferecer brilho suficiente para a maioria das pessoas, e poucos devem ter alguma reclamação sobre a precisão de sua tela táctil ou leitor de digitais.
No entanto, o Galaxy M30s sofre de algumas deficiências. Em primeiro lugar, a Samsung tem falhado em liberar atualizações de patches de segurança nos últimos tempos. No momento da redação deste artigo, nossa análise está presa em patches de três atrás, o que é inaceitável em nossa opinião. Além disso, a Samsung pré-instala aplicativos de publicidade de terceiros, o que é outro problema. Em segundo lugar, nossa unidade de teste se afoga sob uso intenso contínuo, o que é decepcionante. Temos nossas dúvidas com a qualidade de áudio do alto-falante mono, a qualidade das chamadas de nossa unidade de teste e a potência do carregador incluído, mas esses são problemas menores do que os de SoC e de software.
O Samsung Galaxy M30s tem uma duração de bateria fantástica, boas câmeras e uma tela AMOLED brilhante. Embora tenhamos alguns problemas com o dispositivo, ainda o recomendamos se você tiver um orçamento de cerca de 250 Euros (~US$ 275).
No geral, o Galaxy M30s oferece grande valor pelo dinheiro. Nossa unidade de teste nos impressionou em muitas áreas, enquanto nossos problemas com ela devem ter um impacto limitado no uso diário.
Samsung Galaxy M30s
- 08/31/2022 v7 (old)
Florian Schmitt