Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarBreve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy Note 7
| Networking | |
| iperf Server (receive) TCP 1 m | |
| Acer Liquid Jade Primo | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| OnePlus 3 | |
| iperf Client (transmit) TCP 1 m | |
| Acer Liquid Jade Primo | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
| OnePlus 3 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 84 %
iluminação com acumulador: 544 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.9 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.93
ΔE Greyscale 1.8 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
100% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
83.92% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
96.1% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
100% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
87.3% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.12
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 Dual Edge Super AMOLED, 2560x1440, 5.7" | Samsung Galaxy Note Edge Super AMOLED, 2560x1600, 5.6" | Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A Super AMOLED, 2560x1440, 5.7" | Huawei P9 Plus AMOLED, 1920x1080, 5.5" | Microsoft Lumia 950 XL AMOLED, 2560x1440, 5.7" | Apple iPhone 6S Plus IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5" | LG Stylus 2 IPS, 1280x720, 5.7" | LG V10 Quantum-IPS, 2560x1440, 5.7" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -30% | -6% | -95% | -24% | -31% | -142% | -105% | |
| Brightness middle | 544 | 481 -12% | 394.8 -27% | 361 -34% | 297 -45% | 583 7% | 370 -32% | 450 -17% |
| Brightness | 523 | 474 -9% | 397 -24% | 366 -30% | 297 -43% | 560 7% | 374 -28% | 431 -18% |
| Brightness Distribution | 84 | 94 12% | 91 8% | 87 4% | 93 11% | 91 8% | 92 10% | 93 11% |
| Black Level * | 0.46 | 0.25 | 0.22 | |||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.9 | 2.24 -18% | 1.49 22% | 5.1 -168% | 2.67 -41% | 3.55 -87% | 6.1 -221% | 5.18 -173% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 4.2 | 10 -138% | 3.98 5% | 16.5 -293% | 10.39 -147% | |||
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1.8 | 4.02 -123% | 1.98 -10% | 5.5 -206% | 2.81 -56% | 3.88 -116% | 7 -289% | 6.94 -286% |
| Gamma | 2.12 104% | 3.07 72% | 2.19 100% | 2.24 98% | 2.08 106% | 2.2 100% | 2.25 98% | 2.24 98% |
| CCT | 6449 101% | 6476 100% | 6382 102% | 7388 88% | 6379 102% | 7280 89% | 8350 78% | 8091 80% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 83.92 | 66.31 -21% | 59.05 -30% | |||||
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 100 | 99.79 0% | 92.8 -7% | |||||
| Contrast | 1267 | 1480 | 2045 |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 4.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 13 % 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 | ||
| 5.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2.8 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 2.8 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. » 14 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 59.5 Hz |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 59.5 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 59.5 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 8774 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
| AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
| Apple iPhone 6S Plus | |
| HTC 10 | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| OnePlus 3 | |
| LG Stylus 2 | |
| Microsoft Lumia 950 XL | |
| Geekbench 4.0 | |
| 64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
| Apple iPhone 6S Plus | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| OnePlus 3 | |
| 64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
| Apple iPhone 6S Plus | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| OnePlus 3 | |
| GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | |
| T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
| Apple iPhone 6S Plus | |
| HTC 10 | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| OnePlus 3 | |
| LG Stylus 2 | |
| Microsoft Lumia 950 XL | |
| 1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
| Apple iPhone 6S Plus | |
| HTC 10 | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| OnePlus 3 | |
| LG Stylus 2 | |
| Microsoft Lumia 950 XL | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
| Apple iPhone 6S Plus | |
| HTC 10 | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| OnePlus 3 | |
| LG Stylus 2 | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
| Apple iPhone 6S Plus | |
| HTC 10 | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| OnePlus 3 | |
| LG Stylus 2 | |
| GFXBench | |
| on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
| HTC 10 | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| OnePlus 3 | |
| LG Stylus 2 | |
| 1920x1080 Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
| HTC 10 | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| OnePlus 3 | |
| LG Stylus 2 | |
| PCMark for Android - Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A | |
| HTC 10 | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| OnePlus 3 | |
| LG Stylus 2 | |
| Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
| Apple iPhone 6S Plus | |
| HTC 10 | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| OnePlus 3 | |
| Lightmark - 1920x1080 1080p (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| OnePlus 3 | |
| WebXPRT 2015 - Overall (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A | |
| Apple iPhone 6S Plus | |
| HTC 10 | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| OnePlus 3 | |
| LG Stylus 2 | |
| Microsoft Lumia 950 XL | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A | |
| Apple iPhone 6S Plus | |
| HTC 10 | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| OnePlus 3 | |
| LG Stylus 2 | |
| Microsoft Lumia 950 XL | |
| BaseMark OS II - Web (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A | |
| Apple iPhone 6S Plus | |
| HTC 10 | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| OnePlus 3 | |
| LG Stylus 2 | |
| Microsoft Lumia 950 XL | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A | |
| Apple iPhone 6S Plus | |
| HTC 10 | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| OnePlus 3 | |
| LG Stylus 2 | |
| Microsoft Lumia 950 XL | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A | |
| Apple iPhone 6S Plus | |
| HTC 10 | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| OnePlus 3 | |
| LG Stylus 2 | |
| Microsoft Lumia 950 XL | |
* ... smaller is better
| BaseMark OS II - Web (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A | |
| Apple iPhone 6S Plus | |
| HTC 10 | |
| Huawei P9 | |
| OnePlus 3 | |
| LG Stylus 2 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 5 | |
| Asphalt 8: Airborne | |||
| Configurações | Valor | ||
| high | 30 fps | ||
| very low | 30 fps | ||
| Dead Trigger 2 | |||
| Configurações | Valor | ||
| high | 55 fps | ||
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 40.4 °C / 105 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 39.8 °C / 104 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 35.4 °C / 96 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Samsung Galaxy Note 7 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 28.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.9% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (6.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 33% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 59% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 52% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 40% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
HTC 10 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 7.3% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 10.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (27.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 68% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 26% 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%
Huawei P9 Plus audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 19.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 7.3% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 12% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (11.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (29.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 75% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 21% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 86% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 11% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0.02 / 0.2 Watt |
| Ocioso |  0.72 / 1.37 / 1.44 Watt |
| Carga |
5.56 / 6.78 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Gossen Metrahit Energy | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 3500 mAh | Huawei Mate 8 4000 mAh | Microsoft Lumia 950 XL 3340 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge 3600 mAh | Apple iPhone 6S Plus 2750 mAh | Huawei P9 Plus 3400 mAh | Samsung Galaxy Note Edge mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -13% | -127% | 4% | -3% | 7% | -26% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.72 | 0.85 -18% | 2.85 -296% | 0.63 12% | 0.5 31% | 0.87 -21% | 0.4 44% |
| Idle Average * | 1.37 | 2.07 -51% | 2.95 -115% | 1.1 20% | 1.9 -39% | 1.2 12% | 1.5 -9% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.44 | 2.28 -58% | 3.26 -126% | 1.56 -8% | 2.2 -53% | 1.27 12% | 2.4 -67% |
| Load Average * | 5.56 | 3.91 30% | 8.92 -60% | 5.95 -7% | 3.2 42% | 4.69 16% | 6.9 -24% |
| Load Maximum * | 6.78 | 4.69 31% | 9.39 -38% | 6.7 1% | 6.4 6% | 5.63 17% | 11.8 -74% |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy Note 7 3500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A mAh | Huawei Mate 8 4000 mAh | Microsoft Lumia 950 XL 3340 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge 3600 mAh | Apple iPhone 6S Plus 2750 mAh | Huawei P9 Plus 3400 mAh | LG Stylus 2 3000 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -5% | 11% | -38% | 10% | -18% | -15% | -15% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1429 | 1775 24% | 1872 31% | 1078 -25% | 1663 16% | 1655 16% | 1446 1% | 1225 -14% |
| H.264 | 960 | 963 0% | 611 -36% | 914 -5% | 714 -26% | 776 -19% | 697 -27% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 607 | 431 -29% | 865 43% | 369 -39% | 732 21% | 513 -15% | 530 -13% | 663 9% |
| Load | 361 | 322 -11% | 256 -29% | 179 -50% | 392 9% | 197 -45% | 263 -27% | 258 -29% |
Pro
Contra
A Samsung oferece outro ótimo smartphone com o Galaxy Note 7, que não tem um verdadeiro concorrente nesta classe. Nenhum outro smartphone oferece uma ferramenta tão poderosa como é o S-Pen, que foi melhorado pelo fabricante e é muito mais que apenas um simples stylus.
Você também recebe um ótimo hardware. Começa com a tela e continua com o processador, o generoso e rápido equipamento de memória, até a carcaça, que não apenas deixa uma impressão de elegância, mas também está protegida contra água e poeira. A câmera tira boas fotos e a bateria oferece boas durações. E inclusive a Samsung finalmente conseguiu implementar uma porta USB Type-C no seu phablet.
O Samsung Galaxy Note 7 se exibe com hardware de gama alta e uma ótima S-Pen. Somente os problemas com a bateria, para os primeiros modelos, são um grande problema nesta faixa de preços.
Também existem algumas críticas para alguns detalhes. Os módulos WLAN mostraram um desempenho surpreendentemente baixo na recepção, e as possibilidades do USB 3.1 poderiam ser melhor utilizadas. Não entendemos por que a Samsung faz entrega do aparelho apenas com um cabo USB 2.0. O desempenho do alto falante também poderia ser melhor e o preço incrementado fará um grande buraco no seu bolso.
Os fanáticos da série Note ainda ficarão emocionados, e se você estiver procurando uma ferramenta digital, praticamente não existe outra opção, mais que o Samsung Galaxy Note 7.
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
-
09/16/2016 v5.1 (old)
Daniel Schmidt
Price comparison
