Breve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy S20 – Smartphone de alta qualidade com peculiaridades
Comparison Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
87.7 % v7 (old) | 03/2020 | Samsung Galaxy S20 Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11 | 163 g | 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.20" | 3200x1440 | |
86.5 % v7 (old) | 09/2019 | Apple iPhone 11 A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU | 194 g | 64 GB SSD | 6.10" | 1792x828 | |
87.4 % v7 (old) | 03/2019 | Samsung Galaxy S10 Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12 | 157 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.10" | 3040x1440 | |
85.8 % v7 (old) | 10/2019 | OnePlus 7T SD 855+, Adreno 640 | 190 g | 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.55" | 2400x1080 | |
89 % v7 (old) | 12/2019 | Huawei Mate 30 Pro Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16 | 198 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.53" | 2400x1176 | |
83.3 % v7 (old) | 12/2019 | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 SD 730G, Adreno 618 | 208 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.47" | 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
|
iluminação: 97 %
iluminação com acumulador: 745 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.67 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 2 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
99.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.092
Samsung Galaxy S20 AMOLED, 3200x1440, 6.2" | Apple iPhone 11 IPS, 1792x828, 6.1" | Samsung Galaxy S10 OLED, 3040x1440, 6.1" | OnePlus 7T AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.6" | Huawei Mate 30 Pro OLED, 2400x1176, 6.5" | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.5" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | 23% | -25% | -24% | -14% | -44% | |
Brightness middle | 745 | 679 -9% | 701 -6% | 693 -7% | 592 -21% | 625 -16% |
Brightness | 740 | 671 -9% | 705 -5% | 703 -5% | 605 -18% | 607 -18% |
Brightness Distribution | 97 | 93 -4% | 98 1% | 96 -1% | 96 -1% | 89 -8% |
Black Level * | 0.68 | |||||
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 2.67 | 0.8 70% | 3.7 -39% | 3.42 -28% | 2.5 6% | 4.38 -64% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 4.52 | 2.4 47% | 10.3 -128% | 6.12 -35% | 5.5 -22% | 6.83 -51% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2 | 1.1 45% | 1.4 30% | 3.3 -65% | 2.6 -30% | 4.1 -105% |
Gamma | 2.092 105% | 2.24 98% | 2.1 105% | 2.265 97% | 2.16 102% | 2.251 98% |
CCT | 6240 104% | 6610 98% | 6553 99% | 6799 96% | 6173 105% | 7251 90% |
Contrast | 999 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 242.7 Hz | ||
The display backlight flickers at 242.7 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 242.7 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 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 | ||
11 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 6 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. » 21 % 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 S20 | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 | |
OnePlus 7T | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (13627 - 14760, n=5) | |
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy S20 | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 | |
OnePlus 7T | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (10008 - 11784, n=5) |
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy S20 | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (296746 - 527820, n=5) |
Basemark GPU 1.1 | |
1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy S20 | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (71.4 - 71.6, n=2) | |
Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy S20 | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (42.3 - 63, n=2) | |
1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy S20 | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (84.1 - 85.6, n=2) |
VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy S20 | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (4607 - 4957, n=3) | |
Average of class Smartphone (2523 - 10071, n=6, last 2 years) |
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=161, last 2 years) | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
OnePlus 7T (Chrome 76) | |
Samsung Galaxy S20 (Chrome 80) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (50.6 - 56.8, n=5) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 (Chrome 78) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
OnePlus 7T (Chrome 76) | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy S20 (Chrome 80) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (89.3 - 96.2, n=5) | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 (Samsung Browser 9.0) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 (Chrome 78) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=146, last 2 years) | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
OnePlus 7T (Chome 76) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (50.8 - 64.4, n=4) | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 (Samsung Browser 9.0) | |
Samsung Galaxy S20 (Chome 80) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 (Chrome 78) |
WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
OnePlus 7T (Chrome 76) | |
Samsung Galaxy S20 (Chrome 80) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (86 - 102, n=5) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 (Chrome 78) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) | |
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=203, last 2 years) | |
OnePlus 7T (Chrome 76) | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 (Samsung Browser 9.0) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (18094 - 20022, n=5) | |
Samsung Galaxy S20 (Chrome 80) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 (Chrome 78) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy S20 (Chrome 80) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (2294 - 2511, n=5) | |
OnePlus 7T (Chrome 76) | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 (Samsung Browser 9.0) | |
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=160, last 2 years) | |
Apple iPhone 11 (Safari Mobile 13.0) |
* ... smaller is better
Samsung Galaxy S20 | Samsung Galaxy S10 | OnePlus 7T | Huawei Mate 30 Pro | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 | Average 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | -35% | -45% | 7% | -57% | -6% | 51% | |
Sequential Read 256KB | 1542 | 832 -46% | 1406 -9% | 1781 15% | 480.5 -69% | 1520 ? -1% | 1847 ? 20% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 670 | 193.2 -71% | 218.4 -67% | 401.8 -40% | 243.6 -64% | 546 ? -19% | 1436 ? 114% |
Random Read 4KB | 205.3 | 137.4 -33% | 170.1 -17% | 226.4 10% | 106.2 -48% | 206 ? 0% | 277 ? 35% |
Random Write 4KB | 228.1 | 24.44 -89% | 29.9 -87% | 259.2 14% | 118.9 -48% | 193.9 ? -15% | 308 ? 35% |
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 66.3 ? | 77.9 ? 17% | 82.5 ? 24% | 67.3 ? 2% | |||
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 57.7 ? | 64.8 ? 12% | 69.2 ? 20% | 55.7 ? -3% |
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 46.7 °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 43.3 °C / 110 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 31.6 °C / 89 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Samsung Galaxy S20 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 72.8% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 72.8% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 72.8% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (120% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 87% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% 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 S10 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 15% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 77% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 36% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 56% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
desligado | 0 / 0.2 Watt |
Ocioso | 0.9 / 1.5 / 2 Watt |
Carga |
4.8 / 11.5 Watt |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Samsung Galaxy S20 4000 mAh | Apple iPhone 11 3110 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S10 3400 mAh | OnePlus 7T 3800 mAh | Huawei Mate 30 Pro 4500 mAh | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 5260 mAh | Average Samsung Exynos 990 | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | -9% | 16% | -2% | 11% | 4% | 2% | 0% | |
Idle Minimum * | 0.9 | 0.56 38% | 0.61 32% | 0.9 -0% | 0.87 3% | 0.7 22% | 0.846 ? 6% | 0.895 ? 1% |
Idle Average * | 1.5 | 2.99 -99% | 1.27 15% | 1.4 7% | 1.75 -17% | 1.8 -20% | 1.534 ? -2% | 1.453 ? 3% |
Idle Maximum * | 2 | 3.02 -51% | 1.3 35% | 2.9 -45% | 1.83 8% | 2.2 -10% | 1.858 ? 7% | 1.613 ? 19% |
Load Average * | 4.8 | 4.17 13% | 6.17 -29% | 4.7 2% | 3.85 20% | 5.2 -8% | 5.14 ? -7% | 6.5 ? -35% |
Load Maximum * | 11.5 | 5.44 53% | 8.55 26% | 8.3 28% | 6.64 42% | 7.5 35% | 10.7 ? 7% | 9.86 ? 14% |
* ... smaller is better
Samsung Galaxy S20 4000 mAh | Apple iPhone 11 3110 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S10 3400 mAh | OnePlus 7T 3800 mAh | Huawei Mate 30 Pro 4500 mAh | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 5260 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | 22% | -29% | 10% | 8% | 43% | |
Reader / Idle | 2105 | 2765 31% | 1259 -40% | 2003 -5% | 2174 3% | 2134 1% |
H.264 | 809 | 1147 42% | 842 4% | 967 20% | 1098 36% | 1423 76% |
WiFi v1.3 | 726 | 866 19% | 427 -41% | 896 23% | 823 13% | 1127 55% |
Load | 279 | 267 -4% | 170 -39% | 283 1% | 219 -22% | 387 39% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto – Muito bom, mas não o melhor
Quase se tornou uma tradição para os smartphones Galaxy S serem excelentes dispositivos de gama alta que não conseguem alcançar seus concorrentes em todos os aspectos da vida dos smartphones. Por exemplo, a navegação na Web é mais lenta, a duração da bateria é menor, o carregamento leva mais tempo, o desempenho do Wi-Fi é menor e outros smartphones oferecem mais armazenamento pelo mesmo preço. Os clientes europeus com dispositivos S20 baseados em Exynos sofrem um impacto extra, pois esses SKUs oferecem um desempenho inferior ao de seus irmãos Snapdragon e um suporte 5G menos flexível para inicializar.
Dito isto, o Samsung Galaxy S20 continua sendo um smartphone de gama alta muito bom, com uma carcaça fina e estreita que as pessoas com mãos pequenas apreciarão muito. Também oferece um design moderno e quase conservador, além de um baixo peso.
Seu software atual e bonito é uma beleza de usar, oferece uma variedade muito ampla de frequências LTE suportadas e um modem 4G ou 5G muito rápido. Sua câmera tira ótimas fotos, principalmente com pouca luz, e a última atualização corrigiu muitos dos problemas relatados pelos primeiros usuários. Sua câmera flexível de lente tripla com zoom óptico híbrido finamente ajustável pode ser considerada de qualidade ordinária no segmento de smartphones de gama alta, mas isso não nos impediu de realmente gostar dela. Muito. A tela é mais uma vez excelente e pode facilmente ofuscar todos os seus concorrentes com facilidade, e o brilho e a precisão das cores foram aprimorados em relação ao seu antecessor.
Não gostamos particularmente de suas altas temperaturas sob carga e do forte afogamento térmico da CPU. Considerando a duração da bateria significativamente melhorada do S20, é uma pena.
O Samsung Galaxy S20 oferece maior duração da bateria, uma tela extremamente brilhante e boas câmeras. Infelizmente, ele também tem seu conjunto exclusivo de peculiaridades.
Tudo considerado o Samsung Galaxy S20 é um smartphone com um conjunto muito único de falhas e peculiaridades, e, como tal, será difícil acompanhar dispositivos similares da Huawei, Apple ou OnePlus. No entanto, se você não busca o máximo desempenho, se aprecia uma câmera flexível e está procurando um smartphone compacto, o Samsung Galaxy S20 é definitivamente digno de sua consideração.
Samsung Galaxy S20
- 08/31/2022 v7 (old)
Florian Schmitt