Breve Análise do Smartphone Sony Xperia XZ1
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
| OnePlus 5 | |
| Sony Xperia XZ1 | |
| Apple iPhone 8 Plus | |
| Huawei P10 | |
| LG G6 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Apple iPhone 8 Plus | |
| Sony Xperia XZ1 | |
| OnePlus 5 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
| LG G6 | |
| Huawei P10 | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 93 %
iluminação com acumulador: 620 cd/m²
Contraste: 785:1 (Preto: 0.79 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.2 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 3.9 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
Gamma: 2.02
| Sony Xperia XZ1 IPS, 1920x1080, 5.2" | Sony Xperia XZ1 Compact IPS, 1280x720, 4.6" | Honor 9 IPS/LTPS, 1920x1080, 5.2" | Huawei P10 LTPS, 1920x1080, 5.1" | Apple iPhone 8 Plus IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5" | LG G6 IPS LCD, 2880x1440, 5.7" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -10% | 18% | -0% | 36% | 28% | |
| Brightness middle | 620 | 566 -9% | 550 -11% | 547 -12% | 559 -10% | 646 4% |
| Brightness | 610 | 560 -8% | 535 -12% | 556 -9% | 538 -12% | 611 0% |
| Brightness Distribution | 93 | 98 5% | 92 -1% | 86 -8% | 90 -3% | 89 -4% |
| Black Level * | 0.79 | 0.53 33% | 0.42 47% | 0.43 46% | 0.38 52% | 0.23 71% |
| Contrast | 785 | 1068 36% | 1310 67% | 1272 62% | 1471 87% | 2809 258% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.2 | 4.6 -10% | 3.3 21% | 4.8 -14% | 1.3 69% | 4.5 -7% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 5.8 | 9.4 -62% | 4.5 22% | 8.8 -52% | 2.7 53% | 8.3 -43% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 3.9 | 6.5 -67% | 3.6 8% | 4.5 -15% | 1.8 54% | 6 -54% |
| Gamma | 2.02 109% | 2.14 103% | 2.38 92% | 2.39 92% | 2.25 98% | 2.27 97% |
| CCT | 7086 92% | 8189 79% | 7226 90% | 7194 90% | 6797 96% | 7996 81% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 67.74 | |||||
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 99.05 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 2358 Hz | ≤ 24 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 2358 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 24 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 2358 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. 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
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 25.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 7.6 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 17.6 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 57 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 41.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 10 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 31.6 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. » 64 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). | ||
| Lightmark - 1920x1080 1080p (sort by value) | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 6 | |
| Google Pixel 2 | |
| Google Pixel 2 XL | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
| Basemark X 1.1 | |
| Medium Quality (sort by value) | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
| High Quality (sort by value) | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 6 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
| Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sort by value) | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 6 | |
| Google Pixel 2 | |
| Google Pixel 2 XL | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
| Apple iPhone X | |
| Epic Citadel - Ultra High Quality (sort by value) | |
| HTC U11 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 6 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone X (IOS 11.1.1) | |
| Apple iPhone 8 | |
| OnePlus 5 (Chrome 59) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 6 (Chrome Version 58) | |
| HTC U11 (Chrome 58) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 (Samsung Browser 5.2) | |
| Google Pixel 2 (Chrome 62) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ1 Compact (Chrome 62.0.3202.84) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ Premium (Chrome 59) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ1 (Chrome 61) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ (Chrome 52) | |
| LG V30 (Chrome 62) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone X (IOS 11.1.2) | |
| Apple iPhone 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 (Samsung Browser 5.2) | |
| OnePlus 5 (Chrome 59) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 6 (Chrome Version 58) | |
| HTC U11 (Chrome 58) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ1 Compact (Chrome 62.0.3202.84) | |
| Google Pixel 2 (Chrome 62) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ Premium (Chrome 59) | |
| LG V30 (Chrome 62) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ1 (Chrome 61) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ (Chrome 52) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| LG V30 (Chrome 62) | |
| Google Pixel 2 (Chrome 62) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ1 Compact (Chrome 62.0.3202.84) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ1 (Chrome 61) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ Premium (Chrome 59) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ (Chrome 52) | |
| HTC U11 (Chrome 58) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 6 (Chrome Version 58) | |
| OnePlus 5 (Chrome 59) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 (Samsung Browser 5.2) | |
| Apple iPhone 8 | |
| Apple iPhone X (IOS 11.1.2) | |
| WebXPRT 2015 - Overall | |
| Apple iPhone 8 | |
| Apple iPhone X (Safari Mobile 11.0) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S8 (Samsung Browser 5.2) | |
| Google Pixel 2 (Chrome 62) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ1 (Chrome 61) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ1 Compact (Chrome 62.0.3202.84) | |
| HTC U11 (Chrome 58) | |
| OnePlus 5 (Chrome 59) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ Premium (Chrome 59) | |
| LG V30 (Chrome 62) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ (Chrome 52) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Sony Xperia XZ1 | Sony Xperia XZ Premium | HTC U11 | Xiaomi Mi 6 | Google Pixel 2 | Samsung Galaxy S8 | Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -19% | 67% | 16% | 10% | 1% | 249% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 679 | 687 1% | 717 6% | 728 7% | 758 12% | 793 17% | 732 8% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 204.4 | 194 -5% | 206.4 1% | 196.7 -4% | 196.2 -4% | 193.2 -5% | 208.7 2% |
| Random Read 4KB | 156.6 | 74.1 -53% | 91.4 -42% | 143.5 -8% | 173.1 11% | 127.2 -19% | 132.3 -16% |
| Random Write 4KB | 14.93 | 17.2 15% | 80 436% | 25.19 69% | 18.03 21% | 15.25 2% | 164.4 1001% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 65.5 ? | 36.79 ? -44% | 68.8 ? 5% | 63.9 ? -2% | |||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 47.71 ? | 33.31 ? -30% | 46.25 ? -3% | 53.5 ? 12% |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 38.3 °C / 101 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 32.1 °C / 90 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.5 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Sony Xperia XZ1 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 31.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.8% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 52% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 40% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 70% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 24% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Samsung Galaxy S8 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (6.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 40% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 52% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 58% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 34% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
LG G6 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 17.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.6% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 48% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 45% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 66% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 28% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0.03 / 0.31 Watt |
| Ocioso |  0.51 / 2.16 / 2.23 Watt |
| Carga |
7.45 / 9.28 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Sony Xperia XZ1 2700 mAh | Sony Xperia XZ Premium 3230 mAh | Sony Xperia XZ1 Compact 2700 mAh | Huawei Mate 10 Pro 4000 mAh | HTC U11 3000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S8 3000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 6 3350 mAh | OnePlus 5 3300 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -0% | 8% | 16% | 7% | 27% | 22% | 8% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.51 | 0.62 -22% | 0.58 -14% | 0.85 -67% | 0.73 -43% | 0.78 -53% | 0.45 12% | 0.73 -43% |
| Idle Average * | 2.16 | 2.44 -13% | 1.76 19% | 1.15 47% | 1.96 9% | 1.1 49% | 1.67 23% | 1.44 33% |
| Idle Maximum * | 2.23 | 2.59 -16% | 1.81 19% | 1.23 45% | 1.98 11% | 1.16 48% | 1.69 24% | 1.5 33% |
| Load Average * | 7.45 | 4.94 34% | 6.33 15% | 4.12 45% | 4.82 35% | 4.15 44% | 4.07 45% | 6.91 7% |
| Load Maximum * | 9.28 | 7.91 15% | 9.18 1% | 8.42 9% | 7.15 23% | 5.12 45% | 8.54 8% | 8.51 8% |
* ... smaller is better
| Sony Xperia XZ1 2700 mAh | Sony Xperia XZ Premium 3230 mAh | Huawei Mate 10 Pro 4000 mAh | Google Pixel 2 2700 mAh | HTC U11 3000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 6 3350 mAh | OnePlus 5 3300 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 25% | 59% | -6% | -5% | 23% | 8% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1612 | 1754 9% | 1744 8% | 1457 -10% | 1250 -22% | 1534 -5% | |
| H.264 | 580 | 802 38% | 929 60% | 564 -3% | 498 -14% | 623 7% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 601 | 695 16% | 818 36% | 575 -4% | 560 -7% | 739 23% | 518 -14% |
| Load | 172 | 236 37% | 398 131% | 161 -6% | 212 23% | 247 44% |
Pro
Contra
Os smartphones Xperia ainda são facilmente distinguíveis pelo seu design único, e o XZ1 se encaixa bem. Infelizmente, os marcos largos abaixo e acima da tela são uma desvantagem e deveriam ser uma coisa do passado atualmente. No lado positivo, a escolha dos materiais e a qualidade de fabricação são tão altas como se espera da Sony, e o alto nível de resistência à poeira e à água do XZ1 não é tão comum nos smartphones modernos como esperaríamos. Do ponto de vista técnico, ainda existem algumas falhas aqui e ali, como a falta de disponibilidade de GPS em ambientes fechados ou a estamina bastante embaraçosa sob carga. Consequentemente, não podemos recomendar este dispositivo a qualquer pessoa que use o telefone muito quando fora. No entanto, parece ser o telefone perfeito para viajantes freqüentes ao exterior devido à sua ampla gama de bandas 3G e 4G/LTE suportadas. Dito isto, o modelo Dual SIM já foi disponibilizado pela Sony e deve ser ainda melhor.
Moderno por dentro mais do que por fora. No lado positivo, o Xperia XZ1 vem com um sistema operacional atualizado, um processador rápido, alto-falantes estéreo e uma boa câmera. A carcaça é resistente a poeira e à água, mas os marcos antigos acima e abaixo da tela fazem parecer antigo e tudo menos moderno.
Características como o leitor de digitais são esperadas na faixa de preço do XZ1 de cerca de $600, mas o armazenamento interno do telefone parece bastante pequeno em comparação. Os alto-falantes estéreo sempre foram raros nos smartphones e o suporte para DLNA tornou-se cada vez mais raro e pode ser uma grande vantagem para aqueles que possuem servidores de mídia e receptores correspondentes em casa, particularmente para os cineastas entre os nossos leitores. É uma pena que os alto-falantes não sejam particularmente bons.
A câmera é sofisticada e decente, e o aplicativo de câmera bastante versátil não vai decepcionar seus usuários. No entanto, se a câmera for um ou mesmo o fator mais importante em um smartphone para você, sugerimos dar uma olhada mais de perto as alternativas feitas pela Apple, Samsung, Huawei e OnePlus.
O que finalmente defendeu o XZ1 são sua tela brilhante e viva e seu alto desempenho, ambas as quais são considerações importantes para os jogadores. A compatibilidade exclusiva do controle do PlayStation 4 vale a pena mencionar novamente neste momento. Pode não ser novo ou o ponto de venda mais importante, já que praticamente todos os smartphones podem ser usados em combinação com um controle de terceiros, mas certamente é uma vantagem se você já possui um controle de PS4.
Sony Xperia XZ1
- 11/28/2017 v6 (old)
Inge Schwabe
Price comparison
