Breve Análise do Smartphone Sharp Aquos C10

Name: Sharp Aquos C10
Brand: Sharp

Sharp Comeback.

Com o smartphone de gama média Sharp Aquos C10, o fabricante que é bastante bem sucedido no Japão também tenta voltar a ganhar um lugar no Ocidente. Graças a um bom desempenho e amplo espaço na tela, o smartphone pode ser atraente. Descubra em nossa análise se o retorno é bem-sucedido.

Florian Wimmer, 👁 Florian Schmitt, ✓ Felicitas Krohn (traduzido por Ricardo Soto), Published 08/28/2018 🇺🇸 🇩🇪 ...

Android ARM Touchscreen Smartphone

Test device courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de

Download your licensed rating image as PNG / SVG

Sharp Aquos C10 (Aquos Serie)

Processador

Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 8 x 2.2 GHz, Cortex-A53

Placa gráfica

Qualcomm Adreno 508

Memória

4 GB

Pantalha

5.50 polegadas 17:9, 2040 x 1080 pixel 420 PPI, Tela táctil capacitiva, IPS, Brilhante: sim

Disco rígido

64 GB eMMC Flash, 64 GB

, 50 GB livre

Conexões

1 USB 2.0, Conexões Audio: Saída de áudio via USB-C, Card Reader: microSD até 128 GB, 1 Leitor de Impressões Digitais, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensores: Sensor de aceleração, gíroscòpio, sensor de proximidade sensor, bússola, USB-C

Funcionamento em rede

802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM (850/900/1800/1900), UMTS (850/900/1900/2100), LTE (B1/B3/B7/B8/B20), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS

Tamanho

altura x largura x profundidade (em mm): 7.9 x 141.8 x 72

Bateria

10.26 Wh, 2700 mAh Lítio-Polímero

Sistema Operativo

Android 8.0 Oreo

Camera

Primary Camera: 12 MPix Dual camera system: 12 MP, f/1.75, phase comparison AF (dual-pixel), dual LED flash, videos @1080p/30fps (câmera principal), 8 MP, f/2.0, depth sharpness (câmera secundária)
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix f/2.0

Características adicionais

Alto falantes: Alto-falante mono na borda inferior, Teclado: Teclado virtual, Carregador rápido, cabo USB, capa, ferramenta SIM, adaptador USB-C para 3,5 mm, 24 Meses Garantia, LTE Cat.4 (download: 150 Mbit/s / upload: 50 Mbit/s); SAR 0,353 W/kg (head), 1,73 (body), fanless

peso

140 g, Suprimento de energia: 61 g

Preço

399 Euro

Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

see all specifications

Size Comparison

Networking
iperf3 transmit AX12
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro Adreno 512, SD 660, 64 GB eMMC Flash	346 MBit/s +11%
Sharp Aquos C10 Adreno 508, SD 630, 64 GB eMMC Flash	313 MBit/s
JVC J20 Adreno 508, SD 630, 64 GB eMMC Flash	226 MBit/s -28%
Honor View 10 Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	223 MBit/s -29%
LG Q7 Plus Mali-T860 MP2, MT6750S, 64 GB eMMC Flash	54.5 MBit/s -83%
iperf3 receive AX12
Sharp Aquos C10 Adreno 508, SD 630, 64 GB eMMC Flash	308 MBit/s
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro Adreno 512, SD 660, 64 GB eMMC Flash	281 MBit/s -9%
JVC J20 Adreno 508, SD 630, 64 GB eMMC Flash	221 MBit/s -28%
Honor View 10 Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	200 MBit/s -35%
LG Q7 Plus Mali-T860 MP2, MT6750S, 64 GB eMMC Flash	42.7 MBit/s -86%

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 1 Scene 2 Scene 3

click to load images

click to load images

click to load images


548 cd/m²	551 cd/m²	509 cd/m²
544 cd/m²	548 cd/m²	518 cd/m²
533 cd/m²	533 cd/m²	532 cd/m²

Distribuição do brilho

tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2

Máximo: 551 cd/m² (Nits) Médio: 535.1 cd/m² Minimum: 2.44 cd/m²
iluminação: 92 %
iluminação com acumulador: 548 cd/m²
Contraste: 1118:1 (Preto: 0.49 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.21 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 6.1 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
95.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.228

	Sharp Aquos C10 IPS, 2040x1080, 5.5"	BQ Aquaris X2 Pro LTPS, 2160x1080, 5.7"	JVC J20 IPS, 2160x1080, 5.7"	LG Q7 Plus IPS, 2160x1080, 5.5"	Honor View 10 IPS, 2160x1080, 6"
Screen		11%	-32%	-12%	29%
Brightness middle	548	675 23%	411 -25%	431 -21%	530 -3%
Brightness	535	650 21%	426 -20%	419 -22%	523 -2%
Brightness Distribution	92	92 0%	82 -11%	89 -3%	88 -4%
Black Level *	0.49	0.46 6%	0.53 -8%	0.58 -18%	0.35 29%
Contrast	1118	1467 31%	775 -31%	743 -34%	1514 35%
Colorchecker dE 2000 *	5.21	5.9 -13%	8.84 -70%	6.2 -19%	2.4 54%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *	13.47	9.5 29%	15.08 -12%	10.1 25%	5.5 59%
Greyscale dE 2000 *	6.1	6.6 -8%	10.7 -75%	6.2 -2%	2.2 64%
Gamma	2.228 ^99%	2.36 ^93%	2.433 ^90%	2.26 ^97%	2.25 ^98%
CCT	7538 ^86%	7846 ^83%	10717 ^61%	8064 ^81%	6598 ^99%

* ... smaller is better

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

250 Hz

≤ 10 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 250 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 10 % 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 8705 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured.

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
20 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 7 ms rise
20 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 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
40 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 19 ms rise
40 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 21 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. » 58 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms).

AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	71531 Points
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	115834 Points +62%
JVC J20	67408 Points -6%
LG Q7 Plus	44064 Points -38%
Honor View 10	173653 Points +143%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (44128 - 73617, n=12)	68642 Points -4%

AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	89351 Points
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	140875 Points +58%
JVC J20	89279 Points 0%
LG Q7 Plus	52855 Points -41%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (87300 - 90674, n=11)	89396 Points 0%

PCMark for Android
Work performance score (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	5377 Points
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	6332 Points +18%
JVC J20	5762 Points +7%
LG Q7 Plus	3969 Points -26%
Honor View 10	8306 Points +54%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (4948 - 6264, n=13)	5632 Points +5%
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	4636 Points
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	5965 Points +29%
JVC J20	4836 Points +4%
LG Q7 Plus	3080 Points -34%
Honor View 10	6724 Points +45%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (4636 - 5987, n=12)	4968 Points +7%

BaseMark OS II
Overall (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	1152 Points
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	2394 Points +108%
JVC J20	1483 Points +29%
LG Q7 Plus	855 Points -26%
Honor View 10	3181 Points +176%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (1152 - 1570, n=13)	1479 Points +28%
Average of class Smartphone (1196 - 12993, n=158, last 2 years)	6499 Points +464%
System (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	1763 Points
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	5048 Points +186%
JVC J20	3288 Points +87%
LG Q7 Plus	1407 Points -20%
Honor View 10	5195 Points +195%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (1763 - 3319, n=13)	3147 Points +79%
Average of class Smartphone (2368 - 17953, n=158, last 2 years)	10346 Points +487%
Memory (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	998 Points
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	2494 Points +150%
JVC J20	1159 Points +16%
LG Q7 Plus	800 Points -20%
Honor View 10	4276 Points +328%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (838 - 1405, n=13)	1199 Points +20%
Average of class Smartphone (962 - 18911, n=158, last 2 years)	7058 Points +607%
Graphics (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	1502 Points
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	2279 Points +52%
JVC J20	1470 Points -2%
LG Q7 Plus	631 Points -58%
Honor View 10	3892 Points +159%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (1409 - 1523, n=13)	1494 Points -1%
Average of class Smartphone (1017 - 58651, n=158, last 2 years)	17998 Points +1098%
Web (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	666 Points
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	1146 Points +72%
JVC J20	862 Points +29%
LG Q7 Plus	751 Points +13%
Honor View 10	1184 Points +78%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (666 - 936, n=13)	859 Points +29%
Average of class Smartphone (841 - 2363, n=158, last 2 years)	1578 Points +137%

Geekbench 4.4
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	710 Points
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	1579 Points +122%
JVC J20	879 Points +24%
LG Q7 Plus	639 Points -10%
Honor View 10	1918 Points +170%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (710 - 885, n=13)	853 Points +20%
Average of class Smartphone (844 - 9574, n=84, last 2 years)	5609 Points +690%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	2246 Points
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	5856 Points +161%
JVC J20	4220 Points +88%
LG Q7 Plus	2135 Points -5%
Honor View 10	6785 Points +202%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (2246 - 4234, n=13)	4009 Points +78%
Average of class Smartphone (4134 - 34246, n=84, last 2 years)	15765 Points +602%
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	2910 Points
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	5688 Points +95%
JVC J20	3681 Points +26%
LG Q7 Plus	2084 Points -28%
Honor View 10	9015 Points +210%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (2910 - 3956, n=12)	3718 Points +28%
Average of class Smartphone (5192 - 28121, n=61, last 2 years)	12557 Points +332%

3DMark
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	15466 Points
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	26175 Points +69%
JVC J20	16948 Points +10%
LG Q7 Plus	9710 Points -37%
Honor View 10	20022 Points +29%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (15466 - 17032, n=13)	16750 Points +8%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	16508 Points
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	29306 Points +78%
JVC J20	18471 Points +12%
LG Q7 Plus	9656 Points -42%
Honor View 10	22429 Points +36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (16508 - 18635, n=13)	18279 Points +11%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	12667 Points
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	19050 Points +50%
JVC J20	13153 Points +4%
LG Q7 Plus	9903 Points -22%
Honor View 10	14556 Points +15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (12437 - 13217, n=13)	12963 Points +2%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	1363 Points
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	2059 Points +51%
JVC J20	1344 Points -1%
LG Q7 Plus	120 Points -91%
Honor View 10	1943 Points +43%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (1315 - 1374, n=13)	1341 Points -2%
Average of class Smartphone (812 - 7285, n=26, last 2 years)	4204 Points +208%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	1286 Points
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	1938 Points +51%
JVC J20	1257 Points -2%
LG Q7 Plus	96 Points -93%
Honor View 10	1954 Points +52%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (1234 - 1289, n=13)	1258 Points -2%
Average of class Smartphone (756 - 9451, n=26, last 2 years)	4740 Points +269%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	1725 Points
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	2638 Points +53%
JVC J20	1770 Points +3%
LG Q7 Plus	1029 Points -40%
Honor View 10	1906 Points +10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (1687 - 1816, n=13)	1746 Points +1%
Average of class Smartphone (1093 - 4349, n=26, last 2 years)	3303 Points +91%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	819 Points
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	1361 Points +66%
JVC J20	830 Points +1%
LG Q7 Plus	101 Points -88%
Honor View 10	2980 Points +264%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (809 - 839, n=13)	825 Points +1%
Average of class Smartphone (286 - 17553, n=70, last 2 years)	3006 Points +267%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	712 Points
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	1196 Points +68%
JVC J20	721 Points +1%
LG Q7 Plus	80 Points -89%
Honor View 10	2994 Points +321%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (704 - 729, n=13)	718 Points +1%
Average of class Smartphone (240 - 29890, n=70, last 2 years)	3166 Points +345%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	1719 Points
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	2628 Points +53%
JVC J20	1765 Points +3%
LG Q7 Plus	1031 Points -40%
Honor View 10	2931 Points +71%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (1631 - 1822, n=13)	1734 Points +1%
Average of class Smartphone (858 - 7180, n=70, last 2 years)	3260 Points +90%

GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	30 fps
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	51 fps +70%
JVC J20	28 fps -7%
LG Q7 Plus	16 fps -47%
Honor View 10	59 fps +97%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (25 - 31, n=13)	29.2 fps -3%
Average of class Smartphone (23 - 166, n=174, last 2 years)	86.6 fps +189%
1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	30 fps
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	46 fps +53%
JVC J20	29 fps -3%
LG Q7 Plus	17 fps -43%
Honor View 10	125 fps +317%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (29 - 30, n=13)	29.7 fps -1%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 791, n=174, last 2 years)	296 fps +887%

GFXBench 3.0
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	14 fps
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	22 fps +57%
JVC J20	13 fps -7%
LG Q7 Plus	6.8 fps -51%
Honor View 10	55 fps +293%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (11 - 15, n=13)	13.8 fps -1%
Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 166, n=174, last 2 years)	76.1 fps +444%
1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	14 fps
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	23 fps +64%
JVC J20	14 fps 0%
LG Q7 Plus	7.1 fps -49%
Honor View 10	66 fps +371%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (13 - 14, n=13)	13.8 fps -1%
Average of class Smartphone (12 - 502, n=174, last 2 years)	175 fps +1150%

GFXBench 3.1
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	9.8 fps
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	14 fps +43%
JVC J20	9.2 fps -6%
LG Q7 Plus	4.5 fps -54%
Honor View 10	36 fps +267%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (5.3 - 11, n=13)	9.36 fps -4%
Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 166, n=174, last 2 years)	66.7 fps +581%
1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	10 fps
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	15 fps +50%
JVC J20	9.7 fps -3%
LG Q7 Plus	4.7 fps -53%
Honor View 10	21 fps +110%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (5.2 - 10, n=13)	9.38 fps -6%
Average of class Smartphone (8.3 - 365, n=174, last 2 years)	124.3 fps +1143%

GFXBench
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	6 fps
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	8.6 fps +43%
JVC J20	5.2 fps -13%
LG Q7 Plus	2.4 fps -60%
Honor View 10	21 fps +250%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (4.3 - 6, n=13)	5.48 fps -9%
Average of class Smartphone (5 - 154, n=175, last 2 years)	49.5 fps +725%
1920x1080 Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Sharp Aquos C10	5.6 fps
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	9.1 fps +63%
JVC J20	5.5 fps -2%
LG Q7 Plus	2.5 fps -55%
Honor View 10	21 fps +275%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (5.3 - 5.6, n=13)	5.48 fps -2%
Average of class Smartphone (3.1 - 216, n=174, last 2 years)	74.8 fps +1236%

Legend

Sharp Aquos C10 Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Qualcomm Adreno 508, 64 GB eMMC Flash

BQ Aquaris X2 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Qualcomm Adreno 512, 64 GB eMMC Flash

JVC J20 Qualcomm Snapdragon 630, Qualcomm Adreno 508, 64 GB eMMC Flash

LG Q7 Plus Mediatek MT6750S, ARM Mali-T860 MP2, 64 GB eMMC Flash

Honor View 10 HiSilicon Kirin 970, ARM Mali-G72 MP12, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630

Average of class Smartphone

JetStream 1.1 | Octane V2 | Mozilla Kraken 1.1 | WebXPRT 2015

JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro (Chrome 67)	49.4 Points +75%
Honor View 10 (Chrome 63)	34.87 Points +23%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (27.4 - 30.8, n=12)	28.3 Points 0%
Sharp Aquos C10 (Chrome 68)	28.27 Points
JVC J20 (Chrome 68)	28.25 Points 0%
LG Q7 Plus (Chrome 67)	18.69 Points -34%

Octane V2 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=210, last 2 years)	38550 Points +641%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro (Chrome 67)	9582 Points +84%
Honor View 10 (Chrome 63)	6729 Points +29%
Sharp Aquos C10 (Chrome 68)	5202 Points
JVC J20 (Chrome 68)	5117 Points -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (4398 - 5202, n=13)	4963 Points -5%
LG Q7 Plus (Chrome 67)	3422 Points -34%

Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total
LG Q7 Plus (Chrome 67)	13671 ms * -43%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (8396 - 10257, n=13)	9702 ms * -2%
JVC J20 (Chrome 68)	9660 ms * -1%
Sharp Aquos C10 (Chrome 68)	9533 ms *
Honor View 10 (Chrome 63)	6013 ms * +37%
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro (Chrome 67)	4094 ms * +57%
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=167, last 2 years)	1523 ms * +84%

WebXPRT 2015 - Overall
BQ Aquaris X2 Pro (Chrome 67)	159 Points +37%
Honor View 10 (Chrome 63)	157 Points +35%
Sharp Aquos C10 (Chrome 68)	116 Points
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630 (86 - 117, n=10)	105.9 Points -9%
LG Q7 Plus (Chrome 67)	70 Points -40%

* ... smaller is better

	Sharp Aquos C10	BQ Aquaris X2 Pro	JVC J20	LG Q7 Plus	Honor View 10	Average 64 GB eMMC Flash	Average of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5		-1%	-8%	-14%	205%	14%	843%
Sequential Read 256KB	283.8	280.8 -1%	270.6 -5%	235.9 -17%	810 185%	274 ?(95.6 - 704, n=204) -3%	1887 ?(226 - 4512, n=198, last 2 years) 565%
Sequential Write 256KB	213.4	204.8 -4%	199.7 -6%	186.6 -13%	194.3 -9%	176.6 ?(40 - 274, n=204) -17%	1471 ?(57.5 - 3908, n=198, last 2 years) 589%
Random Read 4KB	48.2	51.3 6%	58.3 21%	35.8 -26%	144.3 199%	59.4 ?(9.58 - 148.5, n=204) 23%	278 ?(22.2 - 483, n=198, last 2 years) 477%
Random Write 4KB	16.9	15.43 -9%	6.3 -63%	11.91 -30%	160 847%	32.2 ?(2.34 - 146.9, n=204) 91%	311 ?(9.4 - 753, n=198, last 2 years) 1740%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard	83 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)	83.3 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 0%	82.8 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 0%	81.4 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) -2%	81 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) -2%	77.4 ?(21.1 - 107.6, n=144) -7%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard	60.7 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)	61.1 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 1%	63 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 4%	62.2 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 2%	65.1 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 7%	58.3 ?(11.2 - 83.3, n=144) -4%

Arena of Valor
	Configurações	Valor
	min	31 fps
	high HD	30 fps

Shadow Fight 3
	Configurações	Valor
	high	56 fps
	minimal	55 fps

Carga Máxima

Inatividade


40.1 °C	38.9 °C	38.7 °C
40.4 °C	39.1 °C	39.9 °C
39.2 °C	39.1 °C	38.2 °C

Máximo: 40.4 °C
Médio: 39.3 °C


37.4 °C	38.5 °C	40.9 °C
37.2 °C	38.2 °C	42.8 °C
37.4 °C	38.1 °C	42.2 °C

Máximo: 42.8 °C
Médio: 39.2 °C

alimentação elétrica 42.1 °C | Temperatura do quarto 22.2 °C | Voltcraft IR-260

(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 39.3 °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 63.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 42.8 °C / 109 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 31.4 °C / 89 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.

Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)

Sharp Aquos C10 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (79 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 60.1% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 60.1% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 60.1% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (116.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 86% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 7% 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, 2% similar, 2% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

JVC J20 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 60.9% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 60.9% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 60.9% 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%

Consumo de energia

desligado	0.05 / 0.2 Watt
Ocioso	0.9 / 2.2 / 3.8 Watt
Carga	6.2 / 8 Watt


Key: min: , med: , max: Metrahit Energy

	Sharp Aquos C10 2700 mAh	BQ Aquaris X2 Pro 3100 mAh	JVC J20 3400 mAh	LG Q7 Plus 3000 mAh	Honor View 10 3750 mAh	Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 630	Average of class Smartphone
Power Consumption		21%	21%	27%	4%	30%	13%
Idle Minimum *	0.9	0.63 30%	1 -11%	1 -11%	1.05 -17%	0.732 ?(0.35 - 1.4, n=13) 19%	0.88 ?(0.4 - 2.37, n=158, last 2 years) 2%
Idle Average *	2.2	2.16 2%	1.6 27%	1.57 29%	2.36 -7%	1.835 ?(1 - 2.31, n=13) 17%	1.444 ?(0.6 - 4.26, n=158, last 2 years) 34%
Idle Maximum *	3.8	2.18 43%	2.8 26%	1.64 57%	2.41 37%	2.16 ?(1.4 - 3.8, n=13) 43%	1.6 ?(0.83 - 4.45, n=158, last 2 years) 58%
Load Average *	6.2	4.48 28%	4 35%	4.1 34%	4.93 20%	3.81 ?(2.82 - 6.2, n=13) 39%	6.57 ?(2.3 - 16.5, n=153, last 2 years) -6%
Load Maximum *	8	7.87 2%	5.9 26%	6.02 25%	9.04 -13%	5.62 ?(4.56 - 8, n=13) 30%	9.91 ?(3.53 - 20.8, n=153, last 2 years) -24%

* ... smaller is better

Tempo de Execução da Bateria

Ocioso (sem WLAN, min brilho)		23h 45min
WiFi Websurfing		11h 12min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p		12h 15min
Carga (máximo brilho)		4h 27min

	Sharp Aquos C10 2700 mAh	BQ Aquaris X2 Pro 3100 mAh	JVC J20 3400 mAh	LG Q7 Plus 3000 mAh	Honor View 10 3750 mAh
Battery Runtime		-18%	8%	-23%	11%
Reader / Idle	1425	1374 -4%		980 -31%	1671 17%
H.264	735	658 -10%		455 -38%	819 11%
WiFi v1.3	672	605 -10%	726 8%	620 -8%	679 1%
Load	267	145 -46%		230 -14%	305 14%

Pro

+ Tela brilhante

+ Fotos nítidas da câmera

+ Boa duração da bateria

+ Sem bloatware

+ Operação rápida

+ WLAN veloz

Contra

- Qualidade de voz medíocre

- Sem porta de áudio de 3,5 mm

- Poucas bandas LTE

- Afogamentos sob uso estendido

In review: Sharp Aquos C10. Test unit provided by notebooksbilliger.de

O retorno da Sharp ao mercado ocidental de smartphones é uma tarefa difícil, e, com o Sharp Aquos C10, ela consegue, na primeira tentativa, lançar um sólido dispositivo de gama média no mercado. O smartphone pode convencer com uma tela brilhante, boas câmeras, uma duração de bateria decente e uma WLAN rápida. O desempenho é totalmente suficiente, e o smartphone Sharp parece rápido no geral. No entanto, existem alguns smartphones nessa faixa de preço que trazem significativamente mais potência. Além disso, o Sharp Aquos C10 se afoga visivelmente durante cargas mais longas.

Com o Aquos C10, a Sharp consegue uma boa reentrada no mercado ocidental. Particularmente, as câmeras, a velocidade WLAN e a duração da bateria, são convincentes.

Por outro lado, um comprador em potencial pode ficar incomodado com a falta de uma porta de 3,5 mm, a qualidade de voz medíocre e, é claro, o nível que representa um obstáculo para alguns. Aqueles que podem apreciar o formato incomum do Sharp Aquos C10 e não precisam de tanto poder, terão um bom smartphone que nem todos têm.

Sharp Aquos C10 - 09/27/2019 v7 ^(old)
Florian Wimmer

Acabamento

73%

Teclado

67 / 75 → 89%

Mouse

90%

Conectividade

47 / 70 → 67%

Peso

93%

Bateria

89%

Pantalha

83%

Desempenho do jogos

4 / 64 → 7%

Desempenho da aplicação

38 / 86 → 44%

Temperatura

88%

Ruído

100%

Audio

71 / 90 → 79%

Camera

54%

Médio

69%

76%

Smartphone - Médio equilibrado

Price comparison

Please share our article, every link counts!

> Análises e revisões de portáteis e celulares > Análises > Análises > Breve Análise do Smartphone Sharp Aquos C10

Florian Wimmer, 2018-08-28 (Update: 2018-09-11)

Size Comparison

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

Display Response Times

Sharp Aquos C10 audio analysis

JVC J20 audio analysis

Pro

Contra

More articles related to this device

Price comparison