Breve Análise do Smartphone Xiaomi Black Shark
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Razer Phone 2017 | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
| Honor 10 | |
| Xiaomi Black Shark | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Razer Phone 2017 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| Honor 10 | |
| Xiaomi Black Shark | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 95 %
iluminação com acumulador: 549 cd/m²
Contraste: 1307:1 (Preto: 0.42 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.08 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 6.6 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
100% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.305
| Xiaomi Black Shark IPS, 2160x1080, 6" | Razer Phone 2017 IGZO LCD, 120 Hz, Wide Color Gamut, 1440x2560, 5.7" | OnePlus 6 Optic AMOLED, 2280x1080, 6.3" | Honor 10 IPS, 2280x1080, 5.8" | Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.2" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 25% | 22% | 20% | 33% | |
| Brightness middle | 549 | 436 -21% | 430 -22% | 555 1% | 565 3% |
| Brightness | 541 | 417 -23% | 437 -19% | 537 -1% | 571 6% |
| Brightness Distribution | 95 | 92 -3% | 87 -8% | 94 -1% | 96 1% |
| Black Level * | 0.42 | 0.16 62% | 0.39 7% | ||
| Contrast | 1307 | 2725 108% | 1423 9% | ||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 6.08 | 3.88 36% | 2.3 62% | 2.3 62% | 2.3 62% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 10.69 | 7.96 26% | 4.6 57% | 6 44% | 4.8 55% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 6.6 | 5.8 12% | 2.4 64% | 3.9 41% | 1.9 71% |
| Gamma | 2.305 95% | 2.45 90% | 2.28 96% | 2.19 100% | 2.16 102% |
| CCT | 8399 77% | 7657 85% | 6160 106% | 6212 105% | 6332 103% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 2358 Hz | ≤ 15 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 2358 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 15 % 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 8743 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 40 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 23 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 17 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 97 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (21 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 48 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 25 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 23 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. » 81 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). | ||
| AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Black Shark | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| Honor 10 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (162183 - 242953, n=23) | |
| AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Black Shark | |
| Razer Phone 2017 | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| Honor 10 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (246366 - 299878, n=27) | |
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Razer Phone 2017 | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| Honor 10 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7998 - 13211, n=26) | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Black Shark | |
| Razer Phone 2017 | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| Honor 10 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7360 - 9868, n=27) | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Black Shark | |
| Razer Phone 2017 | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| Honor 10 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (21 - 59, n=27) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 158, n=170, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Black Shark | |
| Razer Phone 2017 | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| Honor 10 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (32 - 61, n=28) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (8.3 - 341, n=170, last 2 years) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=204, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3991 - 18275, n=28) | |
| Xiaomi Black Shark (Firefox 61) | |
| Razer Phone 2017 (Chrome 65) | |
| Honor 10 (Chrome 66) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Honor 10 (Chrome 66) | |
| Razer Phone 2017 (Chrome 65) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2154 - 11204, n=28) | |
| OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66) | |
| Xiaomi Black Shark (Firefox 61) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=161, last 2 years) | |
| WebXPRT 2015 - Overall | |
| OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66) | |
| Xiaomi Black Shark (Firefox 61) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (96 - 291, n=23) | |
| Honor 10 (Chrome 66) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (19 - 103, n=17) | |
| Xiaomi Black Shark (Firefox 61) | |
| Honor 10 (Chrome 66) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
* ... smaller is better
| Xiaomi Black Shark | Razer Phone 2017 | OnePlus 6 | Honor 10 | Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | Average 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -19% | -19% | 17% | -16% | -3% | 264% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 742 | 732 -1% | 726 -2% | 828 12% | 819 10% | 696 ? -6% | 1847 ? 149% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 199.6 | 202.5 1% | 201.4 1% | 192.1 -4% | 204.9 3% | 224 ? 12% | 1436 ? 619% |
| Random Read 4KB | 127.2 | 142.5 12% | 137 8% | 145.9 15% | 129.7 2% | 137.2 ? 8% | 277 ? 118% |
| Random Write 4KB | 114.1 | 14.3 -87% | 21.8 -81% | 163 43% | 22.74 -80% | 84.7 ? -26% | 308 ? 170% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 79.4 | 79.2 ? | 68.6 ? | ||||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 52.5 | 67.2 ? | 52.2 ? |
| Arena of Valor | |||
| Configurações | Valor | ||
| high HD | 60 fps | ||
| high HD | 60 fps | ||
| Minecraft - Pocket Edition | |||
| Configurações | Valor | ||
| fancy graphics, beautiful skies, 74% viewing range | 60 fps | ||
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 49.5 °C / 121 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 63.2 °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 30.9 °C / 88 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Xiaomi Black Shark audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (72.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 12.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.9% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (3.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (6.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 36% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 56% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 56% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 37% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Razer Phone 2017 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 19.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 4% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 93% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 22% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 73% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0.05 / 0.1 Watt |
| Ocioso |  0.8 / 1.5 / 2.3 Watt |
| Carga |
4.8 / 10.1 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Xiaomi Black Shark 4000 mAh | Razer Phone 2017 4000 mAh | OnePlus 6 3300 mAh | Honor 10 3400 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus 3500 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -7% | 23% | -15% | 32% | -1% | -2% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.8 | 0.83 -4% | 0.6 25% | 1.12 -40% | 0.68 15% | 0.862 ? -8% | 0.895 ? -12% |
| Idle Average * | 1.5 | 2.11 -41% | 1 33% | 2.26 -51% | 0.95 37% | 1.728 ? -15% | 1.453 ? 3% |
| Idle Maximum * | 2.3 | 2.24 3% | 1.6 30% | 2.3 -0% | 1.09 53% | 2.07 ? 10% | 1.613 ? 30% |
| Load Average * | 4.8 | 4.94 -3% | 4.3 10% | 5.14 -7% | 4.58 5% | 4.87 ? -1% | 6.5 ? -35% |
| Load Maximum * | 10.1 | 9.08 10% | 8.6 15% | 7.89 22% | 5.16 49% | 9.27 ? 8% | 9.86 ? 2% |
* ... smaller is better
| Xiaomi Black Shark 4000 mAh | Razer Phone 2017 4000 mAh | OnePlus 6 3300 mAh | Honor 10 3400 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus 3500 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 7% | 3% | -17% | -17% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1753 | 1806 3% | 1162 -34% | 1343 -23% | |
| H.264 | 747 | 791 6% | 662 -11% | 674 -10% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 711 | 762 7% | 762 7% | 663 -7% | 521 -27% |
| Load | 253 | 246 -3% | 216 -15% | 237 -6% |
Pro
Contra
Dado o fato de que o Xiaomi Black Shark não está disponível como uma versão global por enquanto, outros telefones de jogos são definitivamente uma opção mais razoável para os clientes europeus: O Black Shark exige que o usuário instale os serviços do Google manualmente, e o software só está disponível em inglês com partes de chinês. É questionável se o usuário pode se conectar à rede LTE europeia. O Wi-Fi é lento e a garantia está ausente.
Mas desde quando jogar é razoável? O Xiaomi Black Shark é extremamente estiloso, e é um dos smartphones mais velozes até hoje, alcançando facilmente 60 fps, mesmo nos jogos mais exigentes. Também é relativamente barato, o que torna tudo isto não tão irracional depois de tudo.
O Xiaomi Black Shark não é um smartphone de jogos para todos, mas é um dispositivo excepcional com muita potência e uma ótima carcaça.
Em comparação direta com o Razer Phone 2017, a desvantagem mais importante do Black Shark é o máximo de fps mais baixos da tela. O Razer Phone é um pacote geral mais completo. No entanto, os usuários chamarão mais a atenção com o exótico dispositivo de jogos da Xiaomi, então podemos definitivamente recomendá-lo para jogadores que preferem um toque de individualidade e que não se importam de ter que mexer um pouco no software do seu dispositivo.
Xiaomi Black Shark
- 07/13/2018 v6 (old)
Florian Wimmer
Price comparison
