Breve Análise do Smartphone Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro – Telefone para exterior com bateria substituível pelo usuário
Competing Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 78 % v7 (old) | 03/2020 | Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3 | 218 g | 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.30" | 2340x1080 | |
| 74 % v7 (old) | 08/2019 | Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2 | 172 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 5.00" | 1280x720 | |
| 77.2 % v7 (old) | 12/2019 | CAT S52 Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320 | 210 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 5.65" | 1440x720 | |
| 77 % v7 (old) | 01/2020 | Blackview BV9800 Pro Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3 | 322 g | 128 GB eMMC Flash | 6.30" | 2340x1080 | |
| 78 % v7 (old) | 02/2019 | Crosscall Trekker-X4 SD 660, Adreno 512 | 250 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 5.50" | 1920x1080 |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro | |
| Blackview BV9800 Pro | |
| Crosscall Trekker-X4 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| CAT S52 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro | |
| Crosscall Trekker-X4 | |
| Blackview BV9800 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| CAT S52 | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 91 %
iluminação com acumulador: 569 cd/m²
Contraste: 1355:1 (Preto: 0.42 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.14 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 7.9 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
98.2% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.256
| Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro IPS, 2340x1080, 6.3" | Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s IPS (PLS), 1280x720, 5" | CAT S52 IPS, 1440x720, 5.7" | Blackview BV9800 Pro IPS, 2340x1080, 6.3" | Crosscall Trekker-X4 IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -8% | 47% | -9% | -18% | |
| Brightness middle | 569 | 525 -8% | 521 -8% | 511 -10% | 374 -34% |
| Brightness | 562 | 513 -9% | 530 -6% | 508 -10% | 352 -37% |
| Brightness Distribution | 91 | 90 -1% | 91 0% | 89 -2% | 86 -5% |
| Black Level * | 0.42 | 0.52 -24% | 0.16 62% | 0.29 31% | 0.35 17% |
| Contrast | 1355 | 1010 -25% | 3256 140% | 1762 30% | 1069 -21% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 6.14 | 6 2% | 2.69 56% | 8.1 -32% | 7.46 -21% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 10.92 | 10.9 -0% | 5.07 54% | 15.2 -39% | 13.27 -22% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 7.9 | 7.8 1% | 1.8 77% | 10.9 -38% | 9.8 -24% |
| Gamma | 2.256 98% | 2.53 87% | 2.243 98% | 2.08 106% | 2.152 102% |
| CCT | 8696 75% | 8605 76% | 6622 98% | 9859 66% | 10554 62% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 250 Hz | ≤ 30 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 250 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 30 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 250 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 8710 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 20 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 7 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 13 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 40 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 46 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 21 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 25 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 77 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). | ||
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=169, last 2 years) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (27.5 - 30.6, n=7) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s (Chrome 75) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Crosscall Trekker-X4 (Chrome 71) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (47.5 - 51.9, n=7) | |
| Blackview BV9800 Pro (Chrome 79) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s (Chrome 75) | |
| CAT S52 (Chrome 79) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=152, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chome 80) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (26.6 - 30.5, n=7) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (46 - 57, n=7) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
| Blackview BV9800 Pro (Chrome 79) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=210, last 2 years) | |
| Crosscall Trekker-X4 (Chrome 71) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (7442 - 10687, n=7) | |
| Blackview BV9800 Pro (Chrome 79) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s (Chrome 75) | |
| CAT S52 (Chrome 79) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| CAT S52 (Chrome 79) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s (Chrome 75) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (4332 - 6212, n=7) | |
| Blackview BV9800 Pro (Chrome 79) | |
| Crosscall Trekker-X4 (Chrome 71) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=167, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro | Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | CAT S52 | Blackview BV9800 Pro | Crosscall Trekker-X4 | Average 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -35% | -21% | -22% | -24% | -3% | 339% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 508 | 298.6 -41% | 286.2 -44% | 286.5 -44% | 272.4 -46% | 513 ? 1% | 1894 ? 273% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 181.1 | 85.4 -53% | 195.4 8% | 185.9 3% | 194.7 8% | 175.2 ? -3% | 1476 ? 715% |
| Random Read 4KB | 108.6 | 59.6 -45% | 76.6 -29% | 86.7 -20% | 71.5 -34% | 117.1 ? 8% | 278 ? 156% |
| Random Write 4KB | 100.5 | 10.38 -90% | 21.3 -79% | 20.74 -79% | 14.3 -86% | 81.1 ? -19% | 312 ? 210% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 72.4 ? | 79.6 ? 10% | 82.6 ? 14% | 77.2 ? 7% | 83.5 ? 15% | 73.4 ? 1% | |
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 59.4 ? | 64.3 ? 8% | 61.8 ? 4% | 61.1 ? 3% | 59.5 ? 0% | 55.4 ? -7% |
(±) 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 63.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 39.5 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.7 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 77% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 77% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 77% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (118% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 86% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 5% 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, 2% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
CAT S52 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 67.6% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 67.6% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 67.6% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (121.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 89% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 2% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 97% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0.1 / 0.3 Watt |
| Ocioso |  0.9 / 1.8 / 2.3 Watt |
| Carga |
5.4 / 6.9 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro 4050 mAh | Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s 2800 mAh | CAT S52 3100 mAh | Blackview BV9800 Pro 6580 mAh | Crosscall Trekker-X4 4400 mAh | Average Samsung Exynos 9611 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 29% | 5% | 4% | 16% | -21% | -3% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.9 | 0.65 28% | 1 -11% | 0.87 3% | 0.7 22% | 1.173 ? -30% | 0.883 ? 2% |
| Idle Average * | 1.8 | 1.62 10% | 1.9 -6% | 1.91 -6% | 1.4 22% | 2.28 ? -27% | 1.467 ? 18% |
| Idle Maximum * | 2.3 | 1.66 28% | 2.7 -17% | 2.03 12% | 2.2 4% | 2.86 ? -24% | 1.621 ? 30% |
| Load Average * | 5.4 | 3.03 44% | 3.6 33% | 4.4 19% | 4.1 24% | 5.97 ? -11% | 6.58 ? -22% |
| Load Maximum * | 6.9 | 4.34 37% | 5.2 25% | 7.49 -9% | 6.4 7% | 7.83 ? -13% | 9.91 ? -44% |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro 4050 mAh | Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s 2800 mAh | CAT S52 3100 mAh | Blackview BV9800 Pro 6580 mAh | Crosscall Trekker-X4 4400 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -18% | -13% | 104% | 15% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1259 | 1199 -5% | |||
| H.264 | 802 | 598 -25% | |||
| WiFi v1.3 | 731 | 619 -15% | 637 -13% | 1492 104% | 839 15% |
| Load | 268 | 200 -25% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto – Telefone ara exteriores com muitas fortalezas
O Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro é um moderno smartphone para exteriores. Não se limita apenas ao exterior, pois os componenytes internos também incluem recursos que normalmente não são encontrados em outros dispositivos reforçados: Há uma porta USB tipo C, armazenamento rápido UFS 2.0 e um sensor de digitais, que foi integrado no botão home por conveniência.
Enquanto isso, o XCover Pro oferece estabilidade suficiente para ambientes difíceis e software com uma interface de usuário moderna. Também estamos contentes de ver qualidades um tanto antiquadas, como uma bateria substituível e o retorno de um conector de 3,5 mm para fones de ouvido.
Embora custe 499 Euros (~US$ 556), o smartphone não pode competir com os smartphones tradicionais em termos de configuração de memória ou desempenho do sistema, parte do orçamento foi gasto em maior estabilidade. O Galaxy XCover também oferece muitos recursos úteis de negócios, como botões livremente atribuíveis, um exterior sutil e suporte para estações docking. Isso também i torna uma opção interessante para usuários domésticos que se aventuram em terrenos acidentados com mais frequência do que a maioria, por exemplo, durante o exercício.
O moderno smartphone para exteriores Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro com uma bateria substituível é um conceito de sucesso.
Obviamente, a duração da bateria poderia ser melhor e a qualidade das chamadas e do alto-falante não é ótima. No entanto, o XCover Pro ainda recebe nossa recomendação devido ao Wi-Fi rápido, bom GPS e câmeras decentes.
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
- 03/02/2020 v7 (old)
Florian Schmitt
Price comparison
