Breve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy M51 – Grande na gama média
Comparison Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 81.3 % v7 (old) | 10/2020 | Samsung Galaxy M51 SD 730, Adreno 618 | 213 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.70" | 2400x1080 | |
| 80 % v7 (old) | 08/2020 | Motorola Moto G 5G Plus SD 765, Adreno 620 | 207 g | 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.70" | 2520x1080 | |
| 78.6 % v7 (old) | 05/2020 | Sony Xperia 10 II SD 665, Adreno 610 | 151 g | 128 GB eMMC Flash | 6.00" | 2520x1080 | |
| 79.8 % v7 (old) | 01/2020 | Samsung Galaxy A51 Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3 | 172 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
| 83.6 % v7 (old) | 08/2020 | OnePlus Nord SD 765G, Adreno 620 | 184 g | 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.44" | 2440x1080 |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | |
| OnePlus Nord | |
| Sony Xperia 10 II | |
| Samsung Galaxy M51 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | |
| OnePlus Nord | |
| Samsung Galaxy M51 | |
| Sony Xperia 10 II | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
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 lens flowerMain lens environmentMain lens low lightUltra wide-angle
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 94 %
iluminação com acumulador: 626 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.88 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 5.9 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
97.6% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 3.441
| Samsung Galaxy M51 Super AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.7" | Motorola Moto G 5G Plus LTPS, 2520x1080, 6.7" | Sony Xperia 10 II OLED, 2520x1080, 6" | Samsung Galaxy A51 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.5" | OnePlus Nord AMOLED, 2440x1080, 6.4" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 24% | 21% | 0% | 10% | |
| Brightness middle | 626 | 461 -26% | 591 -6% | 589 -6% | 529 -15% |
| Brightness | 632 | 458 -28% | 590 -7% | 589 -7% | 531 -16% |
| Brightness Distribution | 94 | 93 -1% | 97 3% | 94 0% | 94 0% |
| Black Level * | 0.52 | ||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 2.88 | 1.01 65% | 1.42 51% | 2.22 23% | 2.53 12% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 4.97 | 2.1 58% | 3.83 23% | 8.24 -66% | 4.52 9% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 5.9 | 1.5 75% | 2.4 59% | 2.6 56% | 1.7 71% |
| Gamma | 3.441 64% | 2.25 98% | 2.215 99% | 2.111 104% | 2.249 98% |
| CCT | 6415 101% | 6701 97% | 9014 72% | 6508 100% | 6462 101% |
| Contrast | 887 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 255 Hz |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 255 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 255 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 8743 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 3 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 3 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. » 15 % 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 | ||
| 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 (32.9 ms). | ||
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M51 | |
| Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | |
| Sony Xperia 10 II | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
| OnePlus Nord | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 (8626 - 9075, n=4) | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M51 | |
| Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | |
| Sony Xperia 10 II | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
| OnePlus Nord | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 (7177 - 7913, n=4) | |
| AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M51 | |
| Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | |
| Sony Xperia 10 II | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
| OnePlus Nord | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 (247507 - 247877, n=2) | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=161, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus Nord (Chrome 84) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M51 (Chrome 85) | |
| Motorola Moto G 5G Plus (Chrome 83) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 (36.6 - 50.1, n=4) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| OnePlus Nord (Chrome 84) | |
| Motorola Moto G 5G Plus (Chrome 83) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 (65.3 - 87.5, n=4) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M51 (Chrome 85) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
| Sony Xperia 10 II (Chrome 84) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=146, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus Nord (Chome 84) | |
| Motorola Moto G 5G Plus (Chrome 83) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M51 (Chome 85) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 (32.8 - 46.5, n=4) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus Nord (Chrome 84) | |
| Motorola Moto G 5G Plus (Chrome 83) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 (60 - 86, n=4) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M51 (Chrome 85) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
| Sony Xperia 10 II (Chrome 84) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=203, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus Nord (Chrome 84) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M51 (Chrome 85) | |
| Motorola Moto G 5G Plus (Chrome 83) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 (12771 - 17501, n=4) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
| Sony Xperia 10 II (Chrome 84) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Sony Xperia 10 II (Chrome 84) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 (2564 - 3436, n=4) | |
| OnePlus Nord (Chrome 84) | |
| Samsung Galaxy M51 (Chrome 85) | |
| Motorola Moto G 5G Plus (Chrome 83) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=160, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy M51 | Motorola Moto G 5G Plus | Sony Xperia 10 II | Samsung Galaxy A51 | OnePlus Nord | Average 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 20% | -41% | -4% | 59% | -1% | 305% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 491.7 | 885 80% | 293.5 -40% | 496.1 1% | 956 94% | 530 ? 8% | 1839 ? 274% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 189.8 | 180.2 -5% | 188.2 -1% | 184.9 -3% | 473.1 149% | 212 ? 12% | 1425 ? 651% |
| Random Read 4KB | 123.6 | 138.1 12% | 76.8 -38% | 110.8 -10% | 126.7 3% | 130.6 ? 6% | 277 ? 124% |
| Random Write 4KB | 114.5 | 119.3 4% | 56.7 -50% | 104.4 -9% | 104.5 -9% | 101.2 ? -12% | 309 ? 170% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 74.8 ? | 87.1 ? 16% | 29.15 ? -61% | 73 ? -2% | 68.3 ? -9% | ||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 59.4 ? | 65.7 ? 11% | 26.13 ? -56% | 60.1 ? 1% | 53.2 ? -10% |
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 46.9 °C / 116 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 44.3 °C / 112 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 24.5 °C / 76 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Samsung Galaxy M51 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (89.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 85.6% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 85.6% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 85.6% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (126.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 96% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 99% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 0% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
OnePlus Nord audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 74.7% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 74.7% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 74.7% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (113.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 86% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 12% 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, 1% similar, 4% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0 / 0.1 Watt |
| Ocioso |  0.8 / 1.3 / 1.8 Watt |
| Carga |
4.8 / 7 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Samsung Galaxy M51 7000 mAh | Motorola Moto G 5G Plus 5000 mAh | Sony Xperia 10 II 3600 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A51 4000 mAh | OnePlus Nord 4115 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -56% | -41% | -9% | -32% | 12% | -18% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.8 | 1.5 -88% | 1.5 -88% | 0.9 -13% | 1.8 -125% | 0.643 ? 20% | 0.894 ? -12% |
| Idle Average * | 1.3 | 2.1 -62% | 2.1 -62% | 1.7 -31% | 2.1 -62% | 1.235 ? 5% | 1.456 ? -12% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.8 | 2.9 -61% | 2.8 -56% | 1.8 -0% | 2.3 -28% | 1.448 ? 20% | 1.616 ? 10% |
| Load Average * | 4.8 | 6.7 -40% | 4.5 6% | 5.2 -8% | 3.4 29% | 4.28 ? 11% | 6.45 ? -34% |
| Load Maximum * | 7 | 9.2 -31% | 7.2 -3% | 6.6 6% | 5.2 26% | 6.65 ? 5% | 9.8 ? -40% |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy M51 7000 mAh | Motorola Moto G 5G Plus 5000 mAh | Sony Xperia 10 II 3600 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A51 4000 mAh | OnePlus Nord 4115 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -44% | -51% | -40% | -33% | |
| Reader / Idle | 2642 | 1549 -41% | 1689 -36% | 2003 -24% | |
| H.264 | 1685 | 581 -66% | 846 -50% | 1064 -37% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 1508 | 914 -39% | 743 -51% | 698 -54% | 869 -42% |
| Load | 365 | 252 -31% | 289 -21% | 261 -28% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto – Uma grande fortaleza, uma fraqueza
"Duração da bateria, duração da bateria, duração da bateria" foi provavelmente o lema ao projetar o Samsung Galaxy M51, e com mais de 25 horas em nosso teste WLAN, este objetivo foi fundamentalmente alcançado. Ainda assim, o smartphone Galaxy não é nem volumoso nem pesado, e a tecnologia da bateria realmente fez um grande progresso nos últimos anos aqui.
O design da nossa unidade de teste é bastante utilitário, mas também não deve assustar ninguém. Embora o equipamento de armazenamento não seja exemplar, é decente, assim como a velocidade da WLAN. Em termos de desempenho, o smartphone também está no nível médio da classe. Gostamos da precisão da localização, a tela é brilhante e o alto-falante mono é potente, mas não produz um som particularmente bom.
O alto desenvolvimento de calor sob uso intenso é preocupante. Particularmente durante os dias quentes de verão, o telefone fica desconfortavelmente quente e precisa diminuir seu desempenho em mais de 20%. Aqueles que querem 5G devem procurar outro lugar e o mesmo vale para aqueles cuja lista de desejos inclui uma fluente tela de 90 Hz.
O Galaxy M51 é um campeão de resistência com um equipamento mediano que quase não mostra nenhuma fraqueza além do forte desenvolvimento de calor.
No geral, a Samsung entregou um smartphone de gama média que deve convencer muitos clientes com sua excelente duração de bateria.
Samsung Galaxy M51
- 08/31/2022 v7 (old)
Florian Schmitt
Price comparison
