Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarBreve Análise do Smartphone Xiaomi Mi 8
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
| Sony Xperia XZ3 | |
| OnePlus 6T | |
| Xiaomi Mi 8 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
| OnePlus 6T | |
| Sony Xperia XZ3 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition | |
| Xiaomi Mi 8 | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 94 %
iluminação com acumulador: 430 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.09 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.93
ΔE Greyscale 3.3 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
140.4% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.257
| Xiaomi Mi 8 AMOLED, 2248x1080, 6.2" | OnePlus 6T Optic AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition Super AMOLED, 2248x1080, 6.2" | Samsung Galaxy S9 Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 5.8" | Sony Xperia XZ3 OLED, 2880x1440, 6" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 24% | 10% | 37% | -10% | |
| Brightness middle | 430 | 437 2% | 429 0% | 529 23% | 543 26% |
| Brightness | 434 | 442 2% | 432 0% | 527 21% | 542 25% |
| Brightness Distribution | 94 | 95 1% | 88 -6% | 96 2% | 92 -2% |
| Black Level * | |||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 5.09 | 2.21 57% | 3.39 33% | 1.4 72% | 6.6 -30% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 8.05 | 4.27 47% | 5.25 35% | 4 50% | 11 -37% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 3.3 | 2.1 36% | 3.3 -0% | 1.6 52% | 4.7 -42% |
| Gamma | 2.257 97% | 2.307 95% | 2.238 98% | 2.16 102% | 1.835 120% |
| CCT | 7026 93% | 6353 102% | 7135 91% | 6358 102% | 6817 95% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 238 Hz |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 238 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 238 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 8774 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 3 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 5 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 18 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21 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. » 19 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). | ||
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 8 | |
| OnePlus 6T | |
| Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
| Sony Xperia XZ3 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7998 - 13211, n=26) | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 8 | |
| OnePlus 6T | |
| Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
| Sony Xperia XZ3 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7360 - 9868, n=27) | |
| AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| OnePlus 6T | |
| Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
| Sony Xperia XZ3 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (246366 - 299878, n=27) | |
| AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 8 | |
| OnePlus 6T | |
| Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
| Sony Xperia XZ3 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (162183 - 242953, n=23) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Sony Xperia XZ3 (Chrome 70) | |
| OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition (Chrome 69) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (22.5 - 90.9, n=25) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 8 (Chrome 72) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=204, last 2 years) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ3 (Chrome 70) | |
| OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3991 - 18275, n=28) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 8 (Chrome 72) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition (Chrome 69) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2154 - 11204, n=28) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 8 (Chrome 72) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition (Chrome 69) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ3 (Chrome 70) | |
| OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=161, last 2 years) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=82, last 2 years) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ3 (Chrome 70) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (19 - 103, n=17) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 8 (Chrome 72) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
| WebXPRT 2015 - Overall | |
| OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition (Chrome 69) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (96 - 291, n=23) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 8 (Chrome 72) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ3 (Chrome 70) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Xiaomi Mi 8 | OnePlus 6T | Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition | Samsung Galaxy S9 | Sony Xperia XZ3 | Average 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 3% | 2% | 6% | -1% | 148% | 558% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 693 | 735 6% | 692 0% | 815 18% | 681 -2% | 760 ? 10% | 1834 ? 165% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 207.8 | 204.4 -2% | 205.2 -1% | 206.9 0% | 196.1 -6% | 297 ? 43% | 1426 ? 586% |
| Random Read 4KB | 136.3 | 138.5 2% | 135.2 -1% | 131 -4% | 135.7 0% | 152.9 ? 12% | 278 ? 104% |
| Random Write 4KB | 21 | 22 5% | 22.65 8% | 23.07 10% | 22.22 6% | 131.6 ? 527% | 310 ? 1376% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 79.2 ? | 34.2 ? | 76 ? | ||||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 67.2 ? | 30.4 ? | 59.6 ? |
Arena of Valor
Asphalt 9
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 42.5 °C / 109 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 39.7 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 34.2 °C / 94 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Xiaomi Mi 8 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 64.6% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 64.6% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 64.6% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (124.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 93% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 98% of all tested devices were better, 2% similar, 0% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
OnePlus 6T audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 62.9% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 62.9% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 62.9% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (116.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 86% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 9% 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, 3% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0.1 / 0.2 Watt |
| Ocioso |  1.5 / 2.2 / 2.6 Watt |
| Carga |
6.1 / 10.9 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Xiaomi Mi 8 3400 mAh | OnePlus 6T 3700 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition 3000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S9 3000 mAh | Sony Xperia XZ3 3300 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 35% | -14% | 52% | 40% | 24% | 24% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 1.5 | 0.7 53% | 1.8 -20% | 0.65 57% | 0.8 47% | 0.862 ? 43% | 0.895 ? 40% |
| Idle Average * | 2.2 | 1.1 50% | 2.9 -32% | 0.81 63% | 1.2 45% | 1.728 ? 21% | 1.447 ? 34% |
| Idle Maximum * | 2.6 | 2.1 19% | 3.5 -35% | 0.92 65% | 1.5 42% | 2.07 ? 20% | 1.608 ? 38% |
| Load Average * | 6.1 | 4.2 31% | 4.8 21% | 4.76 22% | 4.8 21% | 4.87 ? 20% | 6.41 ? -5% |
| Load Maximum * | 10.9 | 8.3 24% | 11.2 -3% | 5.16 53% | 6.2 43% | 9.27 ? 15% | 9.61 ? 12% |
* ... smaller is better
| Xiaomi Mi 8 3400 mAh | OnePlus 6T 3700 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition 3000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S9 3000 mAh | Sony Xperia XZ3 3300 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 15% | -7% | -30% | -31% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1634 | 1936 18% | 1401 -14% | 1182 -28% | 1270 -22% |
| H.264 | 897 | 903 1% | 921 3% | 609 -32% | 420 -53% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 736 | 865 18% | 694 -6% | 474 -36% | 419 -43% |
| Load | 215 | 261 21% | 191 -11% | 164 -24% | 202 -6% |
Pro
Contra
Quando analisamos o Mi 8 Explorer Edition, julgamos ser o padrão ouro da faixa de menos de $ 400, e isso também é verdade para o Mi 8. Não é tão excepcional, apresenta menos brilho (como a tampa traseira translúcida ou o leitor de digitais na tela), mas ainda oferece componentes tradicionais bem estabelecidos a um preço justo. Mesmo muitos meses após o lançamento oficial do smartphone nos países ocidentais, ele continua sendo muito mais barato do que muitos de seus concorrentes, incluindo o autoproclamado assassino de carros chefe, o OnePlus 6T.
Pode não atender aos mais altos padrões e expectativas - seu GPS não é suficientemente preciso, seu modem Wi-Fi é muito lento e seu consumo de energia é muito alto. No entanto, no dia-a-dia, se sente como um smartphone premium com um carcaça robusta, um poderoso SoC, uma tela AMOLED com capacidade HDR e dispositivos de entrada decentes.
Graças à sua excelente relação preço-desempenho, o Xiaomi Mi 8 se mantém fiel à sua palavra.
Existem apenas duas desvantagens. Em primeiro lugar, a garantia do fabricante (ou melhor, falta dela) e o fato de que os clientes estão limitados a apenas uma potencial garantia de revendedor. E segundo, o fato de que enquanto o sistema operacional e o software foram traduzidos muito bem desta vez, a quantidade de bloatware que não pode ser desinstalada ainda é exagerada. Além disso, quando você se aprofunda nas opções e nas configurações, elas ficam muito mais… digamos, exclusiva.
No geral, o Xiaomi Mi 8 ainda merece nosso endosso total, e não apenas por causa de seu alto valor pelo dinheiro. Mal podemos esperar pelo Xiaomi Mi 9, que é esperado para aparecer na nossa porta em apenas algumas semanas.
Xiaomi Mi 8
-
03/11/2019 v6 (old)
Florian Schmitt
Price comparison
