Breve Análise do Smartphone Vivo X50 Pro - A câmera gimbal "revolucionária" faz alguma diferença?
Vergleichsgeräte
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
84.2 % v7 (old) | 10/2020 | Vivo X50 Pro SD 765G, Adreno 620 | 181.5 g | 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.56" | 2376x1080 | |
87.8 % v7 (old) | 06/2020 | Xiaomi Mi 10 SD 865, Adreno 650 | 208 g | 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2340x1080 | |
86.1 % v7 (old) | 06/2020 | Realme X50 Pro SD 865, Adreno 650 | 205 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.44" | 2400x1080 | |
88.4 % v7 (old) | 06/2020 | OnePlus 8 SD 865, Adreno 650 | 180 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.55" | 2400x1080 | |
83.5 % v7 (old) | 06/2020 | Oppo Find X2 Neo SD 765G, Adreno 620 | 171 g | 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
85 % v7 (old) | 06/2020 | LG Velvet SD 765G, Adreno 620 | 180 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.80" | 2460x1080 |
Os Top 10
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Multimídia
» Os Top 10 Portáteis de Jogos
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Leves para Jogos
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Acessíveis de Escritório/Empresariais
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Premium de Escritório/Empresariais
» Os Top 10 dos Portáteis Workstation
» Os Top 10 Subportáteis
» Os Top 10 Ultrabooks
» Os Top 10 Conversíveis
» Os Top 10 Tablets
» Os Top 10 Smartphones
» A melhores Telas de Portáteis Analisadas Pela Notebookcheck
» Top 10 dos portáteis abaixo dos 500 Euros da Notebookcheck
» Top 10 dos Portáteis abaixo dos 300 Euros
Size Comparison
Networking | |
iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
OnePlus 8 | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
Realme X50 Pro | |
Vivo X50 Pro | |
Oppo Find X2 Neo | |
LG Velvet | |
iperf3 receive AX12 | |
Realme X50 Pro | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
OnePlus 8 | |
LG Velvet | |
Oppo Find X2 Neo | |
Vivo X50 Pro |
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.
WeitwinkelLow Light UltraweitwinkelWeitwinkel5-facher-Zoom
|
iluminação: 97 %
iluminação com acumulador: 784 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.5 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 3 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
96.2% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 1.99
Vivo X50 Pro AMOLED, 2376x1080, 6.6" | Xiaomi Mi 10 Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.7" | Realme X50 Pro OLED, 2400x1080, 6.4" | OnePlus 8 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.6" | Oppo Find X2 Neo OLED, 2400x1080, 6.5" | LG Velvet P-OLED, 2460x1080, 6.8" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | 29% | -8% | 30% | -35% | -1% | |
Brightness middle | 784 | 786 0% | 679 -13% | 778 -1% | 797 2% | 586 -25% |
Brightness | 780 | 791 1% | 690 -12% | 783 0% | 807 3% | 587 -25% |
Brightness Distribution | 97 | 96 -1% | 97 0% | 95 -2% | 95 -2% | 97 0% |
Black Level * | ||||||
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 3.5 | 1.1 69% | 3.2 9% | 0.9 74% | 5.4 -54% | 2.8 20% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 6.4 | 2.2 66% | 6.2 3% | 2.2 66% | 9.2 -44% | 6.3 2% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 3 | 1.8 40% | 4.1 -37% | 1.7 43% | 6.4 -113% | 2.3 23% |
Gamma | 1.99 111% | 2.26 97% | 2.28 96% | 2.25 98% | 2.27 97% | 2.01 109% |
CCT | 6666 98% | 6315 103% | 6604 98% | 6481 100% | 7245 90% | 6827 95% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 373.1 Hz | ≤ 99 % brightness setting | |
The display backlight flickers at 373.1 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 99 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 373.1 Hz is relatively high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. However, there are reports that some users are still sensitive to PWM at 500 Hz and above, so be aware. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8706 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. |
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
2.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 1.2 ms rise | |
↘ 1.6 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. » 10 % 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 | ||
3.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2 ms rise | |
↘ 1.6 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 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 10 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). |
PCMark for Android | |
Work performance score (sort by value) | |
Vivo X50 Pro | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
Realme X50 Pro | |
OnePlus 8 | |
Oppo Find X2 Neo | |
LG Velvet | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (8687 - 11041, n=16) | |
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
Vivo X50 Pro | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
Realme X50 Pro | |
OnePlus 8 | |
Oppo Find X2 Neo | |
LG Velvet | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (7245 - 9989, n=17) |
GFXBench 3.1 | |
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
Vivo X50 Pro | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
Realme X50 Pro | |
OnePlus 8 | |
Oppo Find X2 Neo | |
LG Velvet | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (21 - 37, n=15) | |
Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 166, n=173, last 2 years) | |
1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Vivo X50 Pro | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
Realme X50 Pro | |
OnePlus 8 | |
Oppo Find X2 Neo | |
LG Velvet | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (22 - 38, n=15) | |
Average of class Smartphone (8.3 - 365, n=173, last 2 years) |
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
Vivo X50 Pro | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 | |
Realme X50 Pro | |
OnePlus 8 | |
Oppo Find X2 Neo | |
LG Velvet | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (285731 - 332305, n=14) |
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=169, last 2 years) | |
Realme X50 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
LG Velvet (Chrome 83) | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (15.8 - 60.5, n=12) | |
Oppo Find X2 Neo (Chrome 83) | |
Vivo X50 Pro (Chrome 85) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Realme X50 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (10.8 - 96.9, n=11) | |
OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
Vivo X50 Pro (Chrome 85) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=152, last 2 years) | |
Realme X50 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
LG Velvet (Chrome 83) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (9 - 54.9, n=9) | |
Vivo X50 Pro (Chrome 85) |
WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
Realme X50 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
LG Velvet (Chrome 83) | |
Oppo Find X2 Neo (Chrome 83) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (20 - 101, n=13) | |
Vivo X50 Pro (Chrome 85) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=210, last 2 years) | |
Realme X50 Pro | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
LG Velvet (Chrome 83) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (3592 - 19143, n=14) | |
Oppo Find X2 Neo (Chrome 83) | |
OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
Vivo X50 Pro (Chrome 85) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
Vivo X50 Pro (Chrome 85) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (2359 - 15230, n=14) | |
Oppo Find X2 Neo (Chrome 83) | |
LG Velvet (Chrome 83) | |
OnePlus 8 (Chrome 83) | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 (Xiaomi Browser V11.4.23) | |
Realme X50 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
Realme X50 Pro | |
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=167, last 2 years) |
* ... smaller is better
Vivo X50 Pro | Xiaomi Mi 10 | Realme X50 Pro | OnePlus 8 | Oppo Find X2 Neo | LG Velvet | Average 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | 88% | 113% | 101% | 27% | 19% | 16% | 220% | |
Sequential Read 256KB | 925 | 1498 62% | 1756 90% | 1707 85% | 943 2% | 925 0% | 829 ? -10% | 1894 ? 105% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 209.1 | 680 225% | 756 262% | 748 258% | 454.4 117% | 409.2 96% | 376 ? 80% | 1476 ? 606% |
Random Read 4KB | 165.2 | 207 25% | 229.4 39% | 215 30% | 160.5 -3% | 154.3 -7% | 168.8 ? 2% | 278 ? 68% |
Random Write 4KB | 156.8 | 215.9 38% | 252 61% | 203.9 30% | 143.8 -8% | 135.9 -13% | 143.6 ? -8% | 312 ? 99% |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 32.8 °C / 91 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 31 °C / 88 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.1 °C / 81 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Vivo X50 Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (93.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.2% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (4.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.3% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (2.9% 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%
Xiaomi Mi 10 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.2% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (2.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 27% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 65% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 47% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 46% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
desligado | 0.03 / 0.39 Watt |
Ocioso | 1.18 / 2.45 / 2.51 Watt |
Carga |
3.61 / 5.36 Watt |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Vivo X50 Pro 4315 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 10 4780 mAh | Realme X50 Pro 4200 mAh | OnePlus 8 4300 mAh | Oppo Find X2 Neo 4025 mAh | LG Velvet 4300 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | 12% | -4% | -1% | 13% | 25% | 7% | -13% | |
Idle Minimum * | 1.18 | 0.53 55% | 1 15% | 0.9 24% | 0.8 32% | 0.66 44% | 0.965 ? 18% | 0.883 ? 25% |
Idle Average * | 2.45 | 1.46 40% | 1.77 28% | 2.3 6% | 2.21 10% | 1.58 36% | 1.899 ? 22% | 1.467 ? 40% |
Idle Maximum * | 2.51 | 1.52 39% | 1.86 26% | 2.33 7% | 2.23 11% | 1.6 36% | 2.07 ? 18% | 1.621 ? 35% |
Load Average * | 3.61 | 3.83 -6% | 4.23 -17% | 3.5 3% | 3.14 13% | 3.3 9% | 3.98 ? -10% | 6.58 ? -82% |
Load Maximum * | 5.36 | 8.89 -66% | 9.13 -70% | 7.68 -43% | 5.44 -1% | 5.46 -2% | 6.19 ? -15% | 9.91 ? -85% |
* ... smaller is better
Vivo X50 Pro 4315 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 10 4780 mAh | Realme X50 Pro 4200 mAh | OnePlus 8 4300 mAh | Oppo Find X2 Neo 4025 mAh | LG Velvet 4300 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | -2% | -8% | -4% | -7% | -3% | |
Reader / Idle | 1529 | 1789 17% | 1507 -1% | 1374 -10% | ||
H.264 | 1352 | 1126 -17% | 1029 -24% | 1096 -19% | ||
WiFi v1.3 | 763 | 662 -13% | 775 2% | 1045 37% | 712 -7% | 741 -3% |
Load | 216 | 226 5% | 194 -10% | 168 -22% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto do Vivo X50 Pro: Design elegante com câmera Gimbal
O Vivo X50 Pro combina hardware de gama média com uma excelente qualidade de construção, uma sensação de alta qualidade e um design moderno. Ele possui um painel AMOLED brilhante, bem como uma câmera gimbal capaz de tirar fotos muito boas. Apesar de o Vivo X50 Pro ser apenas um dispositivo de gama média superior, seu nível de estabilização de imagem é excelente quando comparado diretamente com smartphones topo de linha com OIS tradicional.
O Vivo X50 Pro é um smartphone de gama média de boa aparência. No entanto, seu sistema operacional FunTouch precisa urgentemente de alguma “europeização”.
Os preços oficiais europeus ainda não foram anunciados. Se acabar custando quase o mesmo que o LG Velvet entes “exótico” contendor de gama média certamente se tornará uma opção interessante. Dita competição neste segmento é dura e numerosa, e uma vez que o X50 Pro esteja oficialmente disponível na Europa, esperamos que dispositivos como o Xiaomi Mi 10 ou OnePlus 8 compitam quase na mesma faixa de preço.
Dado que o fabricante chinês já estabeleceu a sua presença na Alemanha com, entre outros, uma conta oficial do Instagram, esperamos que estes dispositivos estejam oficialmente disponíveis o mais tardar no final deste ano. Com o lançamento da versão global deste dispositivo, esperamos ver recursos de software ajustados em comparação com nossa unidade de análise chinesa, uma certificação DRM e suporte para bandas LTE adicionais, como a banda 28 bastante comum.
Vivo X50 Pro
- 08/31/2022 v7 (old)
Marcus Herbrich