Breve Análise do Smartphone Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Redmi K20 Pro): Não é outro Mi 9 com uma câmera pop-up
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 91 %
iluminação com acumulador: 594 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.51 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 2.6 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
142.2% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.219
| Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | Xiaomi Mi 9 AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | OnePlus 7 AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL IPS, 2340x1080, 6.4" | Google Pixel 3a XL OLED, 2160x1080, 6" | Samsung Galaxy A80 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.7" | LG G8s ThinQ P-OLED, 2248x1080, 6.2" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 23% | -35% | -50% | 7% | -44% | -36% | |
| Brightness middle | 594 | 593 0% | 603 2% | 569 -4% | 409 -31% | 478 -20% | 539 -9% |
| Brightness | 607 | 587 -3% | 605 0% | 537 -12% | 410 -32% | 486 -20% | 556 -8% |
| Brightness Distribution | 91 | 94 3% | 94 3% | 79 -13% | 96 5% | 96 5% | 88 -3% |
| Black Level * | 0.31 | ||||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.51 | 0.9 40% | 3.5 -132% | 3.5 -132% | 1.3 14% | 2.97 -97% | 3.78 -150% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 4.27 | 2 53% | 7.7 -80% | 6 -41% | 2.3 46% | 10.18 -138% | 6.95 -63% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.6 | 1.5 42% | 2.7 -4% | 5.1 -96% | 1.5 42% | 2.5 4% | 2.2 15% |
| Gamma | 2.219 99% | 2.27 97% | 2.266 97% | 2.36 93% | 2.22 99% | 2.031 108% | 2.274 97% |
| CCT | 6390 102% | 6548 99% | 6775 96% | 6827 95% | 6621 98% | 6533 99% | 6013 108% |
| Contrast | 1835 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 223 Hz |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 223 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 223 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 8710 (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 | ||
| 7 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 4 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 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 16 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). | ||
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=169, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 7 (Chrome 74) | |
| Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL (Chrome 75) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (45.5 - 67, n=16) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Chrome 75) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73) | |
| LG G8s ThinQ (Chrome 75) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75) | |
| Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=152, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 7 (Chome 74) | |
| Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL (Chrome 75) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
| LG G8s ThinQ (Chome 75) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (42.5 - 67.9, n=15) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Chrome 75) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chome 75) | |
| Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 7 (Chrome 74) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
| Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL (Chrome 75) | |
| LG G8s ThinQ (Chrome 75) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Chrome 75) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (90 - 129, n=20) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75) | |
| Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=210, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 7 (Chrome 74) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
| Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL (Chrome 75) | |
| LG G8s ThinQ (Chrome 75) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (17011 - 33918, n=21) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Chrome 75) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75) | |
| Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A80 (Chrome 75) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Chrome 75) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (1852 - 2611, n=19) | |
| LG G8s ThinQ (Chrome 75) | |
| Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL (Chrome 75) | |
| OnePlus 7 (Chrome 74) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=167, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro | Xiaomi Mi 9 | OnePlus 7 | Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL | Google Pixel 3a XL | Samsung Galaxy A80 | LG G8s ThinQ | Average 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 24% | 31% | 5% | -37% | -36% | -23% | 10% | 247% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 809 | 666 -18% | 1463 81% | 831 3% | 315.6 -61% | 502 -38% | 791 -2% | 760 ? -6% | 1894 ? 134% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 196.9 | 388.3 97% | 392 99% | 195.6 -1% | 179.1 -9% | 190.4 -3% | 182.4 -7% | 297 ? 51% | 1476 ? 650% |
| Random Read 4KB | 142.5 | 149.4 5% | 175.3 23% | 153.3 8% | 92.1 -35% | 117.5 -18% | 138 -3% | 152.9 ? 7% | 278 ? 95% |
| Random Write 4KB | 148.5 | 165.3 11% | 28.7 -81% | 160.2 8% | 87 -41% | 21.6 -85% | 29.6 -80% | 131.6 ? -11% | 312 ? 110% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 87 ? | 67.5 ? | 76 ? | ||||||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 62.5 ? | 46.7 ? | 59.6 ? |
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 42.1 °C / 108 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 41.7 °C / 107 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 32.8 °C / 91 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 80.4% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 80.4% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 80.4% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (115.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 86% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% 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%
Xiaomi Mi 9 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4% 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%
| desligado |   0 / 0.1 Watt |
| Ocioso |  0.7 / 1 / 1.3 Watt |
| Carga |
5.2 / 10 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9 3300 mAh | OnePlus 7 3700 mAh | Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL 5000 mAh | Google Pixel 3a XL 3700 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A80 3700 mAh | LG G8s ThinQ 3550 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 3% | -1% | -44% | 2% | 4% | -36% | -20% | -25% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.7 | 0.67 4% | 0.6 14% | 0.81 -16% | 0.7 -0% | 0.6 14% | 1.2 -71% | 0.939 ? -34% | 0.883 ? -26% |
| Idle Average * | 1 | 1.26 -26% | 1.1 -10% | 2.35 -135% | 1.63 -63% | 1.2 -20% | 1.6 -60% | 1.506 ? -51% | 1.467 ? -47% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.3 | 1.29 1% | 2 -54% | 2.37 -82% | 1.67 -28% | 1.4 -8% | 2 -54% | 1.799 ? -38% | 1.621 ? -25% |
| Load Average * | 5.2 | 3.71 29% | 4 23% | 5.33 -3% | 2.64 49% | 5 4% | 5 4% | 4.61 ? 11% | 6.58 ? -27% |
| Load Maximum * | 10 | 9.3 7% | 8 20% | 8.55 14% | 4.62 54% | 7.1 29% | 10 -0% | 9.04 ? 10% | 9.91 ? 1% |
* ... smaller is better
| Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9 3300 mAh | OnePlus 7 3700 mAh | Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL 5000 mAh | Google Pixel 3a XL 3700 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A80 3700 mAh | LG G8s ThinQ 3550 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -14% | 10% | 52% | 2% | -8% | -14% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1768 | 1650 -7% | 1989 13% | 2114 20% | 1822 3% | 1796 2% | 1689 -4% |
| H.264 | 987 | 1008 2% | 933 -5% | 2138 117% | 960 -3% | 902 -9% | 753 -24% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 762 | 546 -28% | 901 18% | 801 5% | 709 -7% | 713 -6% | 693 -9% |
| Load | 249 | 194 -22% | 278 12% | 409 64% | 289 16% | 200 -20% | 203 -18% |
Pro
Contra
O Mi 9T Pro, ou o Redmi K20 Pro, dependendo de onde você mora, é outro smartphone poderoso e acessível da Xiaomi. Se a empresa lançar o Mi 9T Pro mundialmente em breve por cerca de 400 Euros (~US$ 444) como varejistas de terceiros estão cobrando pelo Redmi K20 Pro, então recomendaríamos que você considere se está procurando por um Smartphone de menos de US$500.
Um dos maiores destaques do dispositivo é o seu belo painel AMOLED, que quase não possui marcos graças à sua câmera frontal retrátil. O Snapdragon 855 e 8 GB de RAM também estão disponíveis para oferecer excelente desempenho, enquanto os 128 GB de armazenamento são alguns dos UFS 2.1 mais rápidos do mercado. Também gostamos de que a Xiaomi também tenha um scanner óptico de digitais na tela, pois faz com que o dispositivo se sinta mais preparado para o futuro do que muitos de seus contemporâneos.
No entanto, o Mi 9T Pro tem suas desvantagens, embora um modelo mundial possa corrigir alguns dos problemas que temos com o dispositivo. A cobertura LTE limitada e a certificação Widevine L3 não devem afetar o modelo mundial, mas o alto-falante mono, a falta de armazenamento expansível, o carregamento sem fio e a certificação IP não nos incomodam. Da mesma forma, duvidamos que o modelo mundial aborde o afogamento do SoC, enquanto o MIUI é uma questão de gosto.
O Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro, mais conhecido como Redmi K20 Pro em algumas regiões, é um ótimo polivalente, mas não possui o polimento do Mi 9.
Certamente, a câmera selfie pop-up motorizada e o design sem ranhuras ajudam a distinguir o Mi 9T Pro de seus concorrentes, mas parece que a Xiaomi não é capaz de comercializar o dispositivo da série Mi 9. Enquanto o Mi 9T Pro custa tanto quanto o Mi 9, seu módulo Wi-Fi mais lento, alto-falante mono, armazenamento flash mais lento, pior calibração de tela e pior gerenciamento de temperatura fazem com que seja uma venda mais difícil do que o seu homônimo. O anterior tem uma bateria maior, melhor duração da bateria e um fone de ouvido de 3,5 mm, o que poderia fazer pender a balança em favor do Mi 9T Pro para algumas pessoas.
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
- 07/30/2019 v6 (old)
Marcus Herbrich
Price comparison
