Notebookcheck Logo

Breve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy Note 7

Combinação explosiva. O Note finalmente está disponível na Europa novamente. O lançamento, no entanto, é ofuscado por problemas técnicos, causando um "recall" em todo o mundo. Mesmo assim, demos uma olhada no Galaxy Note 7.
Android ARM Phablet Smartphone Touchscreen
Samsung Galaxy Note 7 (Galaxy Note Serie)
Processador
Samsung Exynos 8890 Octa 8 x 2.6 GHz, Mongoose / Cortex-A53
Placa gráfica
ARM Mali-T880 MP12 - 4 GB VRAM
Memória
4 GB 
, LPDDR4
Pantalha
5.70 polegadas 16:9, 2560 x 1440 pixel 515 PPI, Tela táctil, native pen support, Dual Edge Super AMOLED, Gorilla Glass 5, HDR, Brilhante: sim
Disco rígido
64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash, 64 GB 
, 52.4 GB livre
Conexões
1 USB 3.0, Conexões Audio: COnector para fones de 3,5 mm, Card Reader: MicroSD de até 256 GB (SDHC, SDXC), 1 Leitor de Impressões Digitais, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensores: Barômetro, Scanner de digitais, Giroscópio, sensor geomágnetico, sensor Hall, monitor de batimentos cardíacos, Scanner de íris, Proximidade, Sensor de luz RGB, Ant+, BeiDou, Galileo
Funcionamento em rede
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/), Bluetooth 4.2, GSM/GPRS/Edge (850, 900, 1800 e 1900 MHz), UMTS/HSPA+ (Bands 1, 2, 4, 5 e 8), LTE Cat. 9 (Bandas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28 (todos FDD) as well as bands 38, 39, 40 e 41 (todos TDD)), LTE, GPS
Tamanho
altura x largura x profundidade (em mm): 7.9 x 153.5 x 73.9
Bateria
3500 mAh Lítio-Ion, Tempo de conversação 3G (de acordo com o fabricante): 26 h
Sistema Operativo
Android 6.0 Marshmallow
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix Dual-Pixel autofoco, apertura f/1.7, estabilização de imagem ótica (OIS)
Secondary Camera: 5 MPix sensor infravermelho de 3,7 MP adicional, que é utilizado como scanner de íris
Características adicionais
Alto falantes: Alto falante mono, Teclado: virtual, Dois adaptadores OTG, adaptador de força, cabo USB 2.0, headset, guia de início rápido, informação da garantia, S Pen, Samsung Apps, Edge Launcher, Grace UI, 24 Meses Garantia, USB Type-C, proteção IP68, SAR head: 0.249 W/kg, Body SAR: 1.280 W/kg, fanless
peso
170 g, Suprimento de energia: 60 g
Preço
849 Euro
Links
Samsung página inicial
Samsung Seção de notebook
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Size Comparison

❌
159.6 mm 79.3 mm 8.6 mm 192 g159.3 mm 77.8 mm 7.5 mm 178 g158.2 mm 77.9 mm 7.3 mm 192 g157.1 mm 80.6 mm 7.9 mm 185 g155 mm 79.6 mm 7.4 mm 142 g153.5 mm 73.9 mm 7.9 mm 170 g153.2 mm 76.1 mm 7.6 mm 171 g151.9 mm 78.4 mm 8.3 mm 165 g151.3 mm 82.4 mm 8.3 mm 174 g150.9 mm 72.6 mm 7.7 mm 157 g148 mm 105 mm 1 mm 1.5 g
Networking
iperf Server (receive) TCP 1 m
Acer Liquid Jade Primo
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 32 GB eMMC Flash
551 MBit/s +91%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
303 MBit/s +5%
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
288 MBit/s
OnePlus 3
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
286 MBit/s -1%
iperf Client (transmit) TCP 1 m
Acer Liquid Jade Primo
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 32 GB eMMC Flash
451 MBit/s +299%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
290 MBit/s +157%
OnePlus 3
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
256 MBit/s +127%
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
113 MBit/s
Garmin Edge 500
Garmin Edge 500
Garmin Edge 500
Garmin Edge 500
Garmin Edge 500
Garmin Edge 500
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Samsung Galaxy Note 7

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.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
orginal image
click to load images
554
cd/m²		544
cd/m²		497
cd/m²
545
cd/m²		544
cd/m²		467
cd/m²
543
cd/m²		542
cd/m²		473
cd/m²
Distribuição do brilho
tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2
Máximo: 554 cd/m² (Nits) Médio: 523.2 cd/m² Minimum: 1.77 cd/m²
iluminação: 84 %
iluminação com acumulador: 544 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.9 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
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

ℹ
Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast 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)

ℹ
To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
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 8743 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured.

AnTuTu v6 | 3DMark | Geekbench 4.0 | GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | GFXBench 3.0 | GFXBench 3.1 | GFXBench | PCMark for Android | BaseMark OS II | Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal | Lightmark
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
133845 Points
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
128749 Points -4%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
133626 Points 0%
HTC 10
131866 Points -1%
Huawei P9
95743 Points -28%
OnePlus 3
142090 Points +6%
LG Stylus 2
28232 Points -79%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
94122 Points -30%
3DMark
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
22523 Points
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
28671 Points +27%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
24020 Points +7%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
27795 Points +23%
HTC 10
27176 Points +21%
Huawei P9
19854 Points -12%
OnePlus 3
30241 Points +34%
LG Stylus 2
4307 Points -81%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
23431 Points
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
33031 Points +41%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
26964 Points +15%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
41615 Points +78%
HTC 10
30061 Points +28%
Huawei P9
21577 Points -8%
OnePlus 3
34023 Points +45%
LG Stylus 2
3744 Points -84%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
19834 Points
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
19610 Points -1%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
17380 Points -12%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
12854 Points -35%
HTC 10
20344 Points +3%
Huawei P9
15517 Points -22%
OnePlus 3
21771 Points +10%
LG Stylus 2
9085 Points -54%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
2292 Points
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
2710 (2421min) Points +18%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
1488 Points -35%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
3316 Points +45%
HTC 10
3157 Points +38%
Huawei P9
1237 Points -46%
OnePlus 3
3424 Points +49%
LG Stylus 2
53 Points -98%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
2670 Points
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
3015 (2895min) Points +13%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
1471 Points -45%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
4557 Points +71%
HTC 10
4581 Points +72%
Huawei P9
1080 Points -60%
OnePlus 3
4633 Points +74%
LG Stylus 2
42 Points -98%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
1532 Points
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
2002 (1539min) Points +31%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
1552 Points +1%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
1697 Points +11%
HTC 10
1512 Points -1%
Huawei P9
2510 Points +64%
OnePlus 3
1789 Points +17%
LG Stylus 2
728 Points -52%
Geekbench 4.0
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
1865 Points
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
1840 Points -1%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
2503 Points +34%
Huawei P9
1755 Points -6%
OnePlus 3
1754 Points -6%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
5213 Points
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
5503 Points +6%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
4286 Points -18%
Huawei P9
4904 Points -6%
OnePlus 3
4097 Points -21%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
52 fps
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
51 fps -2%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
59 fps +13%
HTC 10
43 fps -17%
Huawei P9
43 fps -17%
OnePlus 3
60 fps +15%
LG Stylus 2
4.9 fps -91%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
18.75 fps -64%
1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
80 fps
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
81 fps +1%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
78.9 fps -1%
HTC 10
73 fps -9%
Huawei P9
40 fps -50%
OnePlus 3
89 fps +11%
LG Stylus 2
5.1 fps -94%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
27.11 fps -66%
GFXBench 3.0
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
25 fps
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
27 fps +8%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
11 fps -56%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
38.4 fps +54%
HTC 10
24 fps -4%
Huawei P9
19 fps -24%
OnePlus 3
46 fps +84%
LG Stylus 2
1.8 fps -93%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
11.81 fps -53%
1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
38 fps
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
38 fps 0%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
18 fps -53%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
38.4 fps +1%
HTC 10
39 fps +3%
Huawei P9
18 fps -53%
OnePlus 3
47 fps +24%
LG Stylus 2
3.9 fps -90%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
17.54 fps -54%
GFXBench 3.1
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
14 fps
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
15 fps +7%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
28 fps +100%
HTC 10
14 fps 0%
Huawei P9
11 fps -21%
OnePlus 3
30 fps +114%
LG Stylus 2
fps -100%
1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
26 fps
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
28 fps +8%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
28 fps +8%
HTC 10
24 fps -8%
Huawei P9
10 fps -62%
OnePlus 3
31 fps +19%
LG Stylus 2
fps -100%
GFXBench
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
7.9 fps
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
7.9 fps 0%
HTC 10
10 fps +27%
Huawei P9
7.1 fps -10%
OnePlus 3
18 fps +128%
LG Stylus 2
fps -100%
1920x1080 Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
15 fps
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
15 fps 0%
HTC 10
18 fps +20%
Huawei P9
6.5 fps -57%
OnePlus 3
18 fps +20%
LG Stylus 2
fps -100%
PCMark for Android - Work performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
5115 Points
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
4660 Points -9%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
5113 Points 0%
HTC 10
5809 Points +14%
Huawei P9
7058 Points +38%
OnePlus 3
7101 Points +39%
LG Stylus 2
4030 Points -21%
BaseMark OS II
Overall (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
2626 Points
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
2074 Points -21%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
1746 Points -34%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
2206 Points -16%
HTC 10
2193 Points -16%
Huawei P9
2025 Points -23%
OnePlus 3
2496 Points -5%
LG Stylus 2
609 Points -77%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
1465 Points -44%
System (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
3994 Points
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
4080 Points +2%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
3305 Points -17%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
3925 Points -2%
HTC 10
2806 Points -30%
Huawei P9
3930 Points -2%
OnePlus 3
3537 Points -11%
LG Stylus 2
914 Points -77%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
1386 Points -65%
Memory (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
2532 Points
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
2072 Points -18%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
1138 Points -55%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
1124 Points -56%
HTC 10
1772 Points -30%
Huawei P9
2627 Points +4%
OnePlus 3
2052 Points -19%
LG Stylus 2
462 Points -82%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
1945 Points -23%
Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
4273 Points
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
2203 Points -48%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
2476 Points -42%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
4299 Points +1%
HTC 10
5009 Points +17%
Huawei P9
1583 Points -63%
OnePlus 3
4813 Points +13%
LG Stylus 2
324 Points -92%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
2040 Points -52%
Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
1101 Points
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
994 Points -10%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
998 Points -9%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
1199 Points +9%
HTC 10
928 Points -16%
Huawei P9
1029 Points -7%
OnePlus 3
1112 Points +1%
LG Stylus 2
1008 Points -8%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
837 Points -24%
Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
714 Points
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
733 Points +3%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
858 Points +20%
HTC 10
608 Points -15%
Huawei P9
328 Points -54%
OnePlus 3
631 Points -12%
Lightmark - 1920x1080 1080p (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
13.33 fps
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
13.31 fps 0%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
6.6 fps -50%
Huawei P9
7.9 fps -41%
OnePlus 3
23.32 fps +75%

Legend

 
Samsung Galaxy Note 7 Samsung Exynos 8890 Octa, ARM Mali-T880 MP12, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge Samsung Exynos 8890 Octa, ARM Mali-T880 MP12, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A Samsung Exynos 7420 Octa, ARM Mali-T760 MP8, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
 
Apple iPhone 6S Plus Apple A9, Apple A9 / PowerVR GT7600, Apple AP0064K (iPhone NVMe)
 
HTC 10 Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 MSM8996, Qualcomm Adreno 530, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
Huawei P9 HiSilicon Kirin 955, ARM Mali-T880 MP4, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
OnePlus 3 Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 MSM8996, Qualcomm Adreno 530, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
 
LG Stylus 2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 410 MSM8916, Qualcomm Adreno 306, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 810 MSM8994, Qualcomm Adreno 430, 32 GB eMMC Flash
WebXPRT 2015 | JetStream 1.1 | BaseMark OS II | Octane V2 | Mozilla Kraken 1.1
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
177 Points
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
163 Points -8%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
Mali-T760 MP8, Exynos 7420, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
96 Points -46%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, Apple AP0064K (iPhone NVMe)
190 Points +7%
HTC 10
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
108 Points -39%
Huawei P9
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash
128 Points -28%
OnePlus 3
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
122 Points -31%
LG Stylus 2
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 16 GB eMMC Flash
51 Points -71%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 32 GB eMMC Flash
113 Points -36%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
61.3 Points
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
75.1 Points +23%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
Mali-T760 MP8, Exynos 7420, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
48.82 Points -20%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, Apple AP0064K (iPhone NVMe)
118.7 Points +94%
HTC 10
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
52.1 Points -15%
Huawei P9
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash
68.4 Points +12%
OnePlus 3
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
54.4 Points -11%
LG Stylus 2
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 16 GB eMMC Flash
17.8 Points -71%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 32 GB eMMC Flash
46 Points -25%
BaseMark OS II - Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
1101 Points
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
994 Points -10%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
Mali-T760 MP8, Exynos 7420, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
998 Points -9%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, Apple AP0064K (iPhone NVMe)
1199 Points +9%
HTC 10
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
928 Points -16%
Huawei P9
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash
1029 Points -7%
OnePlus 3
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
1112 Points +1%
LG Stylus 2
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 16 GB eMMC Flash
1008 Points -8%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 32 GB eMMC Flash
837 Points -24%
Octane V2 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
12579 Points
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
13191 Points +5%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
Mali-T760 MP8, Exynos 7420, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
7534 Points -40%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, Apple AP0064K (iPhone NVMe)
15967 Points +27%
HTC 10
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
8905 Points -29%
Huawei P9
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash
11783 Points -6%
OnePlus 3
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
9155 Points -27%
LG Stylus 2
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 16 GB eMMC Flash
2742 Points -78%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 32 GB eMMC Flash
8059 Points -36%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
2569 ms *
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
2564 ms * -0%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
Mali-T760 MP8, Exynos 7420, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
5089 ms * -98%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, Apple AP0064K (iPhone NVMe)
1743 ms * +32%
HTC 10
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
3146 ms * -22%
Huawei P9
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash
2923 ms * -14%
OnePlus 3
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
2921 ms * -14%
LG Stylus 2
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 16 GB eMMC Flash
12713 ms * -395%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 32 GB eMMC Flash
5553 ms * -116%

* ... smaller is better

AndroBench 3-5 | BaseMark OS II
AndroBench 3-5
Sequential Read 256KB (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
484.6 MB/s
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
487.3 MB/s +1%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
Mali-T760 MP8, Exynos 7420, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
385.4 MB/s -20%
HTC 10
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
275.1 MB/s -43%
Huawei P9
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash
281.3 MB/s -42%
OnePlus 3
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
408.7 MB/s -16%
LG Stylus 2
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 16 GB eMMC Flash
130.3 MB/s -73%
Xiaomi Mi 5
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
459.6 MB/s -5%
Sequential Write 256KB (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
135.2 MB/s
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
145.1 MB/s +7%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
Mali-T760 MP8, Exynos 7420, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
150.1 MB/s +11%
HTC 10
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
115.6 MB/s -14%
Huawei P9
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash
72.2 MB/s -47%
OnePlus 3
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
153.3 MB/s +13%
LG Stylus 2
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 16 GB eMMC Flash
75.9 MB/s -44%
Xiaomi Mi 5
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
159.3 MB/s +18%
Random Read 4KB (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
82.7 MB/s
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
86.7 MB/s +5%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
Mali-T760 MP8, Exynos 7420, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
90.3 MB/s +9%
HTC 10
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
29.92 MB/s -64%
Huawei P9
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash
39 MB/s -53%
OnePlus 3
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
137.6 MB/s +66%
LG Stylus 2
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 16 GB eMMC Flash
9.8 MB/s -88%
Xiaomi Mi 5
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
106.8 MB/s +29%
Random Write 4KB (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
14.72 MB/s
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
15.79 MB/s +7%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
Mali-T760 MP8, Exynos 7420, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
20.42 MB/s +39%
HTC 10
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
15.89 MB/s +8%
Huawei P9
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash
47.45 MB/s +222%
OnePlus 3
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
18.23 MB/s +24%
LG Stylus 2
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 16 GB eMMC Flash
7.3 MB/s -50%
Xiaomi Mi 5
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
13.61 MB/s -8%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
72.4 MB/s
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
76.4 MB/s +6%
HTC 10
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
83.3 MB/s +15%
Huawei P9
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash
55 MB/s -24%
LG Stylus 2
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 16 GB eMMC Flash
74.9 MB/s +3%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
43.84 MB/s
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
50.4 MB/s +15%
HTC 10
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
65.4 MB/s +49%
Huawei P9
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash
24.83 MB/s -43%
LG Stylus 2
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 16 GB eMMC Flash
49.73 MB/s +13%
BaseMark OS II - Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
1101 Points
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
994 Points -10%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
Mali-T760 MP8, Exynos 7420, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
998 Points -9%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, Apple AP0064K (iPhone NVMe)
1199 Points +9%
HTC 10
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
928 Points -16%
Huawei P9
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash
1029 Points -7%
OnePlus 3
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
1112 Points +1%
LG Stylus 2
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 16 GB eMMC Flash
1008 Points -8%
Xiaomi Mi 5
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
1106 Points 0%
Asphalt 8: Airborne
 ConfiguraçõesValor
 high30 fps
 very low30 fps
Dead Trigger 2
 ConfiguraçõesValor
 high55 fps
Carga Máxima
 40.4 °C40.1 °C39.9 °C 
 39.9 °C40.1 °C38.7 °C 
 39.5 °C39 °C38.7 °C 
Máximo: 40.4 °C
Médio: 39.6 °C
35.9 °C39.8 °C39.6 °C
36.7 °C38.4 °C39.2 °C
36.1 °C38.2 °C38.5 °C
Máximo: 39.8 °C
Médio: 38 °C
alimentação elétrica  36.2 °C | Temperatura do quarto 21.9 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 39.6 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 32.8 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(±) 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.
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2031.638.52525.433.33125.329.44032.928.75033.634.56331.626.98028.429.41002728.912520.830.71602236.320021.345.425020.85031521.254.940019.456.350019.563.563017.767.180017.969.7100017.870.8125017.369.7160017.469.4200016.773.7250017.274.1315018.278.2400017.975.7500017.671.7630017.776.4800017.875.71000017.9701250018.1721600018.259.1SPL3085.7N1.362.7median 17.9median 69.7Delta1.4939.632.44132.431.335.531.531.731.234.22630.446.839.441.833.936.234.629.328.630.233.825.430.629.421.334.434.523.340.541.922.544.845.622.450.153.321.355.85518.458.155.817.56056.817.56152.517.256.660.216.861.769.717.362.774.417.466.87416.672.175.317.371.973.717.665.469.717.663.266.317.756.170.617.459.27017.761.167.317.961.259.118.159.463.318.155.583.129.878.149.11.337.6median 60.2median 17.7median 59.410.71.75.737.536.427.134.832.437.534.827.726.630.831.334.832.233.629.529.731.732.238.33634.933.72638.350.547.147.347.739.450.531.633.329.131.936.231.628.231.532.626.728.628.230.625.227.624.525.430.632.626.428.523.621.332.642.523.539.922.123.342.549.423.446.621.222.549.45524.65022.722.45559.531.553.326.121.359.563.528.755.421.818.463.567.126.358.620.117.567.169.230.256.820.317.569.270.337.65722.217.270.370.141.756.928.516.870.174.852.660.840.617.374.878.459.862.945.817.478.478.761.364.942.316.678.78265.166.247.517.38279.563.963.348.817.679.577.668.26248.917.677.67273.356.654.217.77261.673.24653.917.461.653.371.136.752.917.753.347.473.926.954.817.947.439.973.122.654.218.139.926.859.618.741.118.126.888.480.373.361.629.888.464.534.827.811.81.364.5median 64.5median 52.6median 55.4median 40.6median 17.7median 64.513.620.312.313.81.713.6hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseSamsung Galaxy Note 7HTC 10Huawei P9 Plus
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, 58% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 53% 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%

Consumo de energia
desligadodarklight 0.02 / 0.2 Watt
Ociosodarkmidlight 0.72 / 1.37 / 1.44 Watt
Carga midlight 5.56 / 6.78 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        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

Tempo de Execução da Bateria
Ocioso (sem WLAN, min brilho)
23h 49min
WiFi Websurfing
10h 07min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
16h 00min
Carga (máximo brilho)
6h 01min
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

+ Ótima tela
+ Ótima câmera
+ Longas durações da bateria
+ S-Pen com muitos recursos
+ Generoso equipamento de sensores
+ Veloz LTE Cat. 9
+ Finalmente USB Tipo C
+ OTG
+ Protegido contra a água e poeira (IP 68)
+ carga rápida e carregamento sem fio
+ SoC veloz...

Contra

- ... com afogamentos sob carga contínua
- Alto falante medíocre
- Desempenho ruim do WiFi
- Possibilidades de USB 3.1 não são utilizadas
- Scanner de íris não completamente desenvolvido
- Sem suporte para MHL, nem SlimPort
In review: Samsung Galaxy Note 7 (SM-N930F). Test model courtesy of Notebooksbilliger.
In review: Samsung Galaxy Note 7 (SM-N930F). Test model courtesy of Notebooksbilliger.

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

Acabamento
92%
Teclado
70 / 75 → 94%
Mouse
95%
Conectividade
54 / 60 → 89%
Peso
91%
Bateria
95%
Pantalha
91%
Desempenho do jogos
58 / 63 → 92%
Desempenho da aplicação
61 / 70 → 87%
Temperatura
87%
Ruído
100%
Audio
59 / 91 → 65%
Camera
94%
Médio
81%
91%
Smartphone - Médio equilibrado

Price comparison

Please share our article, every link counts!
Mail Logo
> Análises e revisões de portáteis e celulares > Análises > Análises > Breve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Daniel Schmidt, 2016-10- 4 (Update: 2024-11- 4)