Breve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 96 %
iluminação com acumulador: 565 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.3 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 1.9 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
Gamma: 2.16
| Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.2" | Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.2" | Apple iPhone X Super AMOLED, 2436x1125, 5.8" | Huawei Mate 10 Pro OLED, 2160x1080, 6" | Google Pixel 2 XL P-OLED, 2880x1440, 6" | HTC U11 Plus Super LCD 6, 2880x1440, 6" | OnePlus 5T AMOLED, 2160x1080, 6" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 11% | 19% | 8% | -24% | -15% | -8% | |
| Brightness middle | 565 | 560 -1% | 600 6% | 629 11% | 415 -27% | 361 -36% | 425 -25% |
| Brightness | 571 | 562 -2% | 606 6% | 636 11% | 420 -26% | 356 -38% | 423 -26% |
| Brightness Distribution | 96 | 93 -3% | 94 -2% | 94 -2% | 87 -9% | 90 -6% | 92 -4% |
| Black Level * | 0.21 | ||||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 2.3 | 1.7 26% | 1.2 48% | 1.7 26% | 2.7 -17% | 2.5 -9% | 2.1 9% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 4.8 | 3.4 29% | 3 37% | 3.6 25% | 4.3 10% | 5.3 -10% | 3.4 29% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1.9 | 1.6 16% | 1.6 16% | 2.4 -26% | 3.3 -74% | 1.7 11% | 2.5 -32% |
| Gamma | 2.16 102% | 2.13 103% | 2.23 99% | 2.15 102% | 2.36 93% | 2.21 100% | 2.32 95% |
| CCT | 6332 103% | 6435 101% | 6707 97% | 6337 103% | 6787 96% | 6580 99% | 6455 101% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 81.57 | ||||||
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 99.87 | ||||||
| Contrast | 1719 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 215.5 Hz |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 215.5 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 215.5 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 8705 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
![Grayscales (profile: adaptive [optimized], color space: DCI-P3)](fileadmin/_processed_/b/b/csm_CalMAN_Anpassbar_Optimiert_Grayscale_P3_2a5e5d90e0.jpg)
![Mixed colors (profile: adaptive [optimized], color space: DCI-P3)](fileadmin/_processed_/f/9/csm_CalMAN_Anpassbar_Optimiert_ColorChecker_P3_3eca2185c3.jpg)
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 (20.9 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 3 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 5 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 17 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). | ||
| AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
| Apple iPhone X | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
| Google Pixel 2 XL | |
| HTC U11 Plus | |
| OnePlus 5T | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (236552 - 250577, n=3) | |
| Lightmark - 1920x1080 1080p (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
| Google Pixel 2 XL | |
| HTC U11 Plus | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (34 - 35.8, n=2) | |
| Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
| Apple iPhone X | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
| Google Pixel 2 XL | |
| HTC U11 Plus | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (1436 - 1481, n=3) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (205 - 7616, n=57, last 2 years) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone X (IOS 11.1.1) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
| Motorola Moto Z2 Force (Chrome 63.0.3239.111) | |
| OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (62.9 - 69.6, n=4) | |
| HTC U11 Plus (Chrome 63) | |
| Google Pixel 2 XL (Chrome 62) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus (Samsung Browser 5.2) | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61) | |
| LG V30 (Chrome 62) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=210, last 2 years) | |
| Apple iPhone X (IOS 11.1.2) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (12933 - 15233, n=4) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus (Samsung Browser 5.2) | |
| Motorola Moto Z2 Force (Chrome 63.0.3239.111) | |
| OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63) | |
| HTC U11 Plus (Chrome 63) | |
| Google Pixel 2 XL (Chrome 62) | |
| LG V30 (Chrome 62) | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| LG V30 (Chrome 62) | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61) | |
| Google Pixel 2 XL (Chrome 62) | |
| Motorola Moto Z2 Force (Chrome 63.0.3239.111) | |
| HTC U11 Plus (Chrome 63) | |
| OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (2060 - 3189, n=4) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus (Samsung Browser 5.2) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=167, last 2 years) | |
| Apple iPhone X (IOS 11.1.2) | |
| WebXPRT 2015 - Overall | |
| Apple iPhone X (Safari Mobile 11.0) | |
| Google Pixel 2 XL (Chrome 62) | |
| OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63) | |
| HTC U11 Plus (Chrome 63) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (163 - 202, n=3) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
| Motorola Moto Z2 Force (Chrome 63.0.3239.111) | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus (Samsung Browser 5.2) | |
| LG V30 (Chrome 62) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | LG V30 | HTC U11 Plus | Motorola Moto Z2 Force | Huawei P10 Plus | Average 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -12% | -28% | 77% | 38% | 81% | 40% | 533% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 819 | 788 -4% | 669 -18% | 728 -11% | 696 -15% | 733 -11% | 696 ? -15% | 1887 ? 130% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 204.9 | 194.2 -5% | 193.2 -6% | 207.9 1% | 213.6 4% | 182.6 -11% | 224 ? 9% | 1471 ? 618% |
| Random Read 4KB | 129.7 | 127.2 -2% | 78.2 -40% | 132.4 2% | 148.8 15% | 173.1 33% | 137.2 ? 6% | 278 ? 114% |
| Random Write 4KB | 22.74 | 15.27 -33% | 10.21 -55% | 135.7 497% | 78.6 246% | 149.8 559% | 84.7 ? 272% | 311 ? 1268% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 79.2 ? | 71.1 ? -10% | 62.8 -21% | 75.4 ? -5% | 77.4 ? -2% | 54 ? -32% | 68.6 ? -13% | |
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 67.2 ? | 57.2 ? -15% | 47.2 -30% | 51.3 ? -24% | 54.7 ? -19% | 33.61 ? -50% | 52.2 ? -22% |
| Asphalt 8: Airborne | |||
| Configurações | Valor | ||
| high | 30 fps | ||
| Dead Trigger 2 | |||
| Configurações | Valor | ||
| high | 30 fps | ||
| Battle Bay | |||
| Configurações | Valor | ||
| full resolution | 60 fps | ||
| World of Tanks Blitz | |||
| Configurações | Valor | ||
| high, 0xAA, 0xAF | 59 fps | ||
| Arena of Valor | |||
| Configurações | Valor | ||
| high HD | 60 fps | ||
| Shadow Fight 3 | |||
| Configurações | Valor | ||
| high | 60 fps | ||
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 35.8 °C / 96 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 63.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 37.9 °C / 100 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 22.4 °C / 72 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 9% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 84% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 29% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 63% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Google Pixel 2 XL audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 28.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.1% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 26% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 67% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 46% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 47% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Apple iPhone X audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 14.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 20% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 71% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 41% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 51% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0 / 0.09 Watt |
| Ocioso |  0.68 / 0.95 / 1.09 Watt |
| Carga |
4.58 / 5.16 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus 3500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus 3500 mAh | Google Pixel 2 XL 3520 mAh | Apple iPhone X 2716 mAh | Huawei Mate 10 Pro 4000 mAh | LG V30 3300 mAh | HTC U11 Plus 3930 mAh | OnePlus 5T 3300 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -6% | -59% | -67% | -22% | -21% | -33% | -22% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.68 | 0.68 -0% | 1.28 -88% | 1.03 -51% | 0.85 -25% | 0.72 -6% | 0.51 25% | 0.58 15% |
| Idle Average * | 0.95 | 1.13 -19% | 1.87 -97% | 2.4 -153% | 1.15 -21% | 1.37 -44% | 1.62 -71% | 1.44 -52% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.09 | 1.16 -6% | 1.89 -73% | 2.6 -139% | 1.23 -13% | 1.41 -29% | 1.87 -72% | 1.53 -40% |
| Load Average * | 4.58 | 4.69 -2% | 3.73 19% | 2.96 35% | 4.12 10% | 3.46 24% | 3.92 14% | 3.17 31% |
| Load Maximum * | 5.16 | 5.24 -2% | 8.08 -57% | 6.6 -28% | 8.42 -63% | 7.83 -52% | 8.27 -60% | 8.54 -66% |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus 3500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus 3500 mAh | Google Pixel 2 XL 3520 mAh | Apple iPhone X 2716 mAh | Huawei Mate 10 Pro 4000 mAh | OnePlus 5T 3300 mAh | Motorola Moto Z2 Force 2730 mAh | LG V30 3300 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 21% | 17% | -7% | 48% | 24% | 23% | 32% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1343 | 1565 17% | 1706 27% | 1292 -4% | 1744 30% | 1754 31% | 1630 21% | 1914 43% |
| H.264 | 674 | 742 10% | 672 0% | 634 -6% | 929 38% | 799 19% | 811 20% | 822 22% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 521 | 736 41% | 581 12% | 564 8% | 818 57% | 718 38% | 531 2% | 774 49% |
| Load | 237 | 275 16% | 302 27% | 180 -24% | 398 68% | 257 8% | 354 49% | 267 13% |
Pro
Contra
Com o Galaxy S9 Plus, a Samsung conseguiu criar novamente um ótimo smartphone que recebeu muitas melhorias sensatas, mas sem inovações reais. Os dois níveis de abertura da câmera principal são ótimos para ter e funcionar bem na vida cotidiana. A Samsung também otimizou ainda mais a qualidade da imagem. O modo Super Slow Motion não é muito mais do que um artifício para boas condições de iluminação e as imagens resultantes são adequadas apenas para redes sociais. Os emojis AR também não funcionam bem. Qualquer semelhança com o usuário é baseada principalmente na sorte.
Seja como for, a empresa coreana entregou um ótimo produto de qualquer maneira. Um processador rápido, uma ótima tela, uma melhor posição para o leitor de impressões digitais, armazenamento que pode ser mais facilmente expandido, bons alto-falantes estéreo e proteção contra poeira e água, certamente são pontos positivos. Até mesmo uma variante dual-SIM está disponível.
O Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus é um smartphone poderoso, mas ainda tem que lutar com alguns problemas iniciais.
O smartphone Samsung é menos convincente quando se trata de tempos de duração de bateria, que são notavelmente piores do que eram para o modelo anterior. O Quick Charge também não funcionou para o nosso dispositivo de teste, de modo que precisou de mais de quatro horas para carregar totalmente em nosso teste - tempo demais. A Samsung provavelmente resolverá esses problemas com uma atualização, mas isso ainda deixa um gosto ruim na boca dos usuários que compraram este smartphone pelo preço total no início.
Se você já possui um Galaxy S8+, não há motivo suficiente para mudar agora. As diferenças no uso diário são muito pequenas para justificar a disparidade de preços.
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
- 03/26/2018 v6 (old)
Daniel Schmidt
Price comparison
