Breve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy S10
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 98 %
iluminação com acumulador: 701 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.7 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 1.4 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
98.1% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.1
| Samsung Galaxy S10 OLED, 3040x1440, 6.1" | Samsung Galaxy S9 Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 5.8" | Apple iPhone XS OLED, 2436x1125, 5.8" | OnePlus 6T Optic AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | LG V40 ThinQ OLED, 3120x1440, 6.4" | Sony Xperia XZ3 OLED, 2880x1440, 6" | Huawei P20 Pro OLED, 2240x1080, 6.1" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 10% | 12% | -5% | 4% | -62% | 15% | |
| Brightness middle | 701 | 529 -25% | 639 -9% | 437 -38% | 567 -19% | 543 -23% | 569 -19% |
| Brightness | 705 | 527 -25% | 637 -10% | 442 -37% | 559 -21% | 542 -23% | 578 -18% |
| Brightness Distribution | 98 | 96 -2% | 94 -4% | 95 -3% | 89 -9% | 92 -6% | 95 -3% |
| Black Level * | |||||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 3.7 | 1.4 62% | 1 73% | 2.21 40% | 3.3 11% | 6.6 -78% | 1.3 65% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 10.3 | 4 61% | 2.2 79% | 4.27 59% | 6.1 41% | 11 -7% | 2.1 80% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1.4 | 1.6 -14% | 2.2 -57% | 2.1 -50% | 1.1 21% | 4.7 -236% | 1.6 -14% |
| Gamma | 2.1 105% | 2.16 102% | 1.9 116% | 2.307 95% | 2.46 89% | 1.835 120% | 2.31 95% |
| CCT | 6553 99% | 6358 102% | 6364 102% | 6353 102% | 6495 100% | 6817 95% | 6401 102% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 240.4 Hz | ≤ 99 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 240.4 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 99 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 240.4 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 8715 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 2 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. » 12 % 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 | ||
| 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 (32.8 ms). | ||
| desligado |   0.01 / 0.07 Watt |
| Ocioso |  0.61 / 1.27 / 1.3 Watt |
| Carga |
6.17 / 8.55 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Samsung Galaxy S10 3400 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S9 3000 mAh | Apple iPhone XS 2658 mAh | Huawei P20 Pro 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9 3300 mAh | LG V40 ThinQ 3300 mAh | Sony Xperia XZ3 3300 mAh | Average Samsung Exynos 9820 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 24% | -0% | 10% | 5% | -5% | 2% | -11% | -22% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.61 | 0.65 -7% | 0.95 -56% | 0.84 -38% | 0.67 -10% | 0.87 -43% | 0.8 -31% | 0.65 ? -7% | 0.883 ? -45% |
| Idle Average * | 1.27 | 0.81 36% | 1.34 -6% | 1.54 -21% | 1.26 1% | 1.39 -9% | 1.2 6% | 1.455 ? -15% | 1.467 ? -16% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.3 | 0.92 29% | 1.48 -14% | 1.57 -21% | 1.29 1% | 1.41 -8% | 1.5 -15% | 1.675 ? -29% | 1.621 ? -25% |
| Load Average * | 6.17 | 4.76 23% | 4 35% | 2.47 60% | 3.71 40% | 3.96 36% | 4.8 22% | 5.88 ? 5% | 6.55 ? -6% |
| Load Maximum * | 8.55 | 5.16 40% | 5.13 40% | 2.49 71% | 9.3 -9% | 8.6 -1% | 6.2 27% | 9.44 ? -10% | 9.9 ? -16% |
* ... smaller is better
Initial Verdict
O Samsung Galaxy S10 apresenta-se como um smartphone topo de gama completo e forte. Além disso, nossa unidade de análise não tem nenhum problema de consumo de energia do qual nosso Galaxy S10+ sofreu, então o S10 deve ter uma duração de bateria melhor do que seu irmão maior, pelo menos por enquanto.
O S10 também tem as mesmas câmeras traseiras do S10+, embora esteja faltando a segunda câmera frontal que do último, por isso as selfies podem ser um pouco piores. O S10 e o S10+ compartilham quase todo o mesmo hardware, por isso será interessante ver se a carcaça menor consegue manter o Exynos 9820 fresco sob uso intenso sustentado.
Se você preferir um smartphone compacto, não precisa de 1 TB de armazenamento interno e está considerando uma das séries S10, então o Galaxy S10 pode ser uma melhor alternativa do que o S10+. After all, you can save €350 with almost no compromises.
Price comparison
