Breve Análise do Smartphone Vivo Nex Ultimate
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| LG G7 ThinQ | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| Vivo Nex Ultimate | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| LG G7 ThinQ | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| Vivo Nex Ultimate | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 95 %
iluminação com acumulador: 356 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 7.08 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 4.7 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
95.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.096
| Vivo Nex Ultimate Super AMOLED, 2316x1080, 6.6" | Samsung Galaxy Note 8 Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.3" | LG G7 ThinQ IPS, 3120x1440, 6.1" | Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S IPS, 2160x1080, 6" | OnePlus 6 Optic AMOLED, 2280x1080, 6.3" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 45% | 63% | 32% | 37% | |
| Brightness middle | 356 | 530 49% | 974 174% | 492 38% | 430 21% |
| Brightness | 352 | 536 52% | 975 177% | 463 32% | 437 24% |
| Brightness Distribution | 95 | 93 -2% | 96 1% | 90 -5% | 87 -8% |
| Black Level * | 0.49 | 0.59 | |||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 7.08 | 2.6 63% | 5.4 24% | 2.4 66% | 2.3 68% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 14.1 | 5.1 64% | 13.1 7% | 6.2 56% | 4.6 67% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 4.7 | 2.7 43% | 5 -6% | 4.5 4% | 2.4 49% |
| Gamma | 2.096 105% | 2.04 108% | 2.31 95% | 2.25 98% | 2.28 96% |
| CCT | 7297 89% | 6206 105% | 7480 87% | 6395 102% | 6160 106% |
| Contrast | 1988 | 834 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 117.9 Hz |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 117.9 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 117.9 Hz is very low, so the flickering may cause eyestrain and headaches after extended use. 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 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 | ||
| 10 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 5 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. » 20 % 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 v6 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Vivo Nex Ultimate | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| LG G7 ThinQ | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (162183 - 242953, n=23) | |
| AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Vivo Nex Ultimate | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| LG G7 ThinQ | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (246366 - 299878, n=27) | |
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Vivo Nex Ultimate | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| LG G7 ThinQ | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7998 - 13211, n=26) | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| Vivo Nex Ultimate | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| LG G7 ThinQ | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7360 - 9868, n=27) | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Vivo Nex Ultimate | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| LG G7 ThinQ | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (21 - 59, n=27) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 166, n=174, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Vivo Nex Ultimate | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| LG G7 ThinQ | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (32 - 61, n=28) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (8.3 - 365, n=174, last 2 years) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66) | |
| OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (22.5 - 90.9, n=25) | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S (Chrome 66.0.3359.158) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0) | |
| Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=210, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66) | |
| LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3991 - 18275, n=28) | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S (Chrome 66.0.3359.158) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0) | |
| Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2154 - 11204, n=28) | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S (Chrome 66.0.3359.158) | |
| LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66) | |
| OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=167, last 2 years) | |
| WebXPRT 2015 - Overall | |
| OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66) | |
| LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (96 - 291, n=23) | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S (Chrome 66.0.3359.158) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0) | |
| Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Vivo Nex Ultimate | Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | LG G7 ThinQ | Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S | OnePlus 6 | Average 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -8% | -8% | 122% | 0% | 167% | 536% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 687 | 797 16% | 695 1% | 756 10% | 726 6% | 829 ? 21% | 1887 ? 175% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 228.4 | 205.9 -10% | 176.4 -23% | 208.1 -9% | 201.4 -12% | 376 ? 65% | 1471 ? 544% |
| Random Read 4KB | 126.7 | 122.5 -3% | 110.5 -13% | 135.1 7% | 137 8% | 168.8 ? 33% | 278 ? 119% |
| Random Write 4KB | 22.1 | 14.55 -34% | 23.26 5% | 128.4 481% | 21.8 -1% | 143.6 ? 550% | 311 ? 1307% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 67.9 ? | 84.7 ? | 66.8 ? | ||||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 59.3 ? | 62.7 ? | 56.3 ? |
| Arena of Valor | |||
| Configurações | Valor | ||
| min | 60 fps | ||
| high HD | 60 fps | ||
| Asphalt 8: Airborne | |||
| Configurações | Valor | ||
| high | 30 fps | ||
| very low | 29 fps | ||
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 45.9 °C / 115 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 43.6 °C / 110 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 30.8 °C / 87 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Vivo Nex Ultimate audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 65.5% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 65.5% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 65.5% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (115% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 86% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 10% 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, 1% similar, 3% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.6% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 42% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 51% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 61% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 32% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0.4 / 0.6 Watt |
| Ocioso |  0.9 / 1.5 / 1.7 Watt |
| Carga |
3.7 / 7.2 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Vivo Nex Ultimate 4000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy Note 8 3300 mAh | LG G7 ThinQ 3000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S 3400 mAh | OnePlus 6 3300 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 8% | -24% | -26% | 7% | -19% | -21% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.9 | 0.73 19% | 1.16 -29% | 0.75 17% | 0.6 33% | 0.862 ? 4% | 0.88 ? 2% |
| Idle Average * | 1.5 | 1.44 4% | 1.98 -32% | 2.25 -50% | 1 33% | 1.728 ? -15% | 1.444 ? 4% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.7 | 1.53 10% | 2.07 -22% | 2.26 -33% | 1.6 6% | 2.07 ? -22% | 1.6 ? 6% |
| Load Average * | 3.7 | 4.56 -23% | 4.51 -22% | 4.89 -32% | 4.3 -16% | 4.87 ? -32% | 6.57 ? -78% |
| Load Maximum * | 7.2 | 5.09 29% | 8.3 -15% | 9.6 -33% | 8.6 -19% | 9.27 ? -29% | 9.91 ? -38% |
* ... smaller is better
| Vivo Nex Ultimate 4000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy Note 8 3300 mAh | LG G7 ThinQ 3000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S 3400 mAh | OnePlus 6 3300 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -29% | -12% | -16% | -10% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1925 | 1134 -41% | 1662 -14% | 1678 -13% | 1806 -6% |
| H.264 | 1133 | 662 -42% | 908 -20% | 718 -37% | 791 -30% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 1026 | 474 -54% | 591 -42% | 716 -30% | 762 -26% |
| Load | 203 | 246 21% | 260 28% | 239 18% | 246 21% |
Pro
Contra
O Vivo Nex Ultimate é um smartphone fascinante: Primeiro, mostra a tecnologia dos próximos anos. Em segundo lugar, mostra que os fabricantes chineses podem fornecer um sistema operacional bem traduzido e adaptações para o mercado ocidental. E há tantas coisas para ver: a câmera frontal que se estende, deslizando para fora com um som futurista, o leitor de impressões digitais e o alto-falante, ambos escondidos atrás da tela, e a carcaça, brilhando em todas as cores do arco-íris. Além disso, o dispositivo oferece alto desempenho e boas câmeras.
Com todo o fascínio pelo dispositivo, você não deve ignorar que não obterá um smartphone perfeito por um preço de 699 Euros (~$820): A carcaça parece elegante, mas é feito com material que se sente ordinário, o Wi-Fi é mais lento do que em outros aparelhos de última geração e o GPS poderia funcionar com mais precisão. O alto-falante está não é o melhor: O SoC oferece alto desempenho, no entanto, será afogado de forma considerável sob uso intenso. A tela é um pouco escura e mostra algumas oscilações em baixos níveis de brilho. O leitor de digitais demora um pouco para detectar um dedo, se é que é capaz de reconhecê-lo.
Sem marcos, equipado com a mais recente tecnologia e muito elegante: Este é o Vivo Nex Ultimate. Não é perfeito, mas uma verdadeira recomendação para os entusiastas da tecnologia e para aqueles que querem ser originais.
No entanto, a duração da bateria é simplesmente incrível: Após 17 horas de navegação na rede Wi-Fi contínua sem precisar de uma tomada elétrica, você pode perdoar o smartphone em algumas coisas. Portanto, podemos recomendar o Vivo Nex Ultimate para qualquer um que possa viver com algumas deficiências menores e esteja procurando um smartphone que se destaque na multidão e tenha recursos inovadores.
Vivo Nex Ultimate
- 07/23/2018 v6 (old)
Florian Wimmer
Price comparison
