Breve Análise do Smartphone Xiaomi Mi 9T: Um dispositivo de gama média com recorde de duração de bateria
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
Networking | |
iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Sony Xperia 10 | |
Huawei P30 Lite | |
iperf3 receive AX12 | |
Sony Xperia 10 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Huawei P30 Lite |
|
iluminação: 96 %
iluminação com acumulador: 589 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.5 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.93
ΔE Greyscale 1.6 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
95.1% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.24
Xiaomi Mi 9T AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | Xiaomi Mi 9 SE AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6" | Xiaomi Mi 9 AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | Huawei P30 Lite IPS LCD, 2312x1080, 6.2" | Motorola Moto G7 Plus IPS, 2270x1080, 6.2" | Samsung Galaxy A50 AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | Sony Xperia 10 IPS-LCD, 2520x1080, 6" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | -3% | 21% | -10% | -105% | -23% | -66% | |
Brightness middle | 589 | 583 -1% | 593 1% | 451 -23% | 537 -9% | 644 9% | 547 -7% |
Brightness | 589 | 577 -2% | 587 0% | 430 -27% | 525 -11% | 628 7% | 525 -11% |
Brightness Distribution | 96 | 97 1% | 94 -2% | 90 -6% | 85 -11% | 91 -5% | 93 -3% |
Black Level * | 0.55 | 0.58 | 0.36 | ||||
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 2.5 | 1.6 36% | 0.9 64% | 1.4 44% | 6.41 -156% | 2.64 -6% | 4.6 -84% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 4.9 | 3.9 20% | 2 59% | 4.4 10% | 10.86 -122% | 9.23 -88% | 12.1 -147% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1.6 | 2.7 -69% | 1.5 6% | 2.5 -56% | 6.7 -319% | 2.5 -56% | 3.9 -144% |
Gamma | 2.24 98% | 2.27 97% | 2.27 97% | 2.22 99% | 2.099 105% | 2.024 109% | 2.17 101% |
CCT | 6544 99% | 6267 104% | 6548 99% | 6422 101% | 8310 78% | 6649 98% | 7158 91% |
Contrast | 820 | 926 | 1519 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 245.1 Hz | ≤ 99 % brightness setting | |
The display backlight flickers at 245.1 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 245.1 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 | ||
---|---|---|
3.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2 ms rise | |
↘ 1.2 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. » 11 % 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 | ||
4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2 ms rise | |
↘ 2 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. » 11 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). |
Basemark GPU 1.1 | |
1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 () | |
Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 () | |
1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 () |
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Huawei P30 Lite | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Sony Xperia 10 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 (202586 - 210836, n=2) |
VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 () | |
Average of class Smartphone (2523 - 10071, n=6, last 2 years) |
Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 () | |
Average of class Smartphone (205 - 7616, n=56, last 2 years) |
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=162, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 (36.6 - 50.1, n=4) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE (Chrome 73) | |
Huawei P30 Lite (Chrome 74) | |
Sony Xperia 10 (Chrome Version 73) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=148, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 (32.8 - 46.5, n=4) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE (Chrome 73) | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chome 73) | |
Huawei P30 Lite (Chrome 74) |
WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=82, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 (60 - 86, n=4) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE (Chrome 73) | |
Huawei P30 Lite (Chrome 74) | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chrome 73) | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Sony Xperia 10 (Chrome Version 73) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=204, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 (12771 - 17501, n=4) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE (Chrome 73) | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chrome 73) | |
Huawei P30 Lite (Chrome 74) | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Sony Xperia 10 (Chrome Version 73) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
Sony Xperia 10 (Chrome Version 73) | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Huawei P30 Lite (Chrome 74) | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chrome 73) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 (2564 - 3436, n=4) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE (Chrome 73) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=161, last 2 years) |
* ... smaller is better
Xiaomi Mi 9T | Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | Huawei P30 Lite | Motorola Moto G7 Plus | Samsung Galaxy A50 | Sony Xperia 10 | Xiaomi Mi 9 | Average 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | -21% | -29% | -25% | -24% | -40% | 55% | -8% | 319% | |
Sequential Read 256KB | 492.7 | 492.5 0% | 293.2 -40% | 283.6 -42% | 507 3% | 273.8 -44% | 666 35% | 513 ? 4% | 1838 ? 273% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 179.2 | 190.1 6% | 158.6 -11% | 208.7 16% | 192.1 7% | 232.9 30% | 388.3 117% | 175.2 ? -2% | 1430 ? 698% |
Random Read 4KB | 128.6 | 115.8 -10% | 71.6 -44% | 76.6 -40% | 98.9 -23% | 53.1 -59% | 149.4 16% | 117.1 ? -9% | 278 ? 116% |
Random Write 4KB | 107.8 | 21.86 -80% | 87.3 -19% | 73.1 -32% | 18.2 -83% | 14.39 -87% | 165.3 53% | 81.1 ? -25% | 310 ? 188% |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 35.4 °C / 96 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 34.7 °C / 94 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 23.8 °C / 75 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Xiaomi Mi 9T audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (89 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 28.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.9% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 20% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 71% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 42% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 51% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (6.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 17% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 74% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 39% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 54% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
desligado | 0.02 / 0.19 Watt |
Ocioso | 0.54 / 0.95 / 1.08 Watt |
Carga |
2.7 / 5.4 Watt |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Xiaomi Mi 9T 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9 SE 3070 mAh | Huawei P30 Lite 3340 mAh | Motorola Moto G7 Plus 3000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A50 4000 mAh | Sony Xperia 10 2870 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9 3300 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | -7% | -91% | -82% | -67% | -57% | -37% | -33% | -76% | |
Idle Minimum * | 0.54 | 0.53 2% | 0.91 -69% | 1.1 -104% | 0.8 -48% | 0.72 -33% | 0.67 -24% | 0.643 ? -19% | 0.895 ? -66% |
Idle Average * | 0.95 | 1.18 -24% | 2.41 -154% | 1.7 -79% | 1.5 -58% | 2.16 -127% | 1.26 -33% | 1.235 ? -30% | 1.447 ? -52% |
Idle Maximum * | 1.08 | 1.2 -11% | 2.43 -125% | 2.1 -94% | 1.7 -57% | 2.17 -101% | 1.29 -19% | 1.448 ? -34% | 1.608 ? -49% |
Load Average * | 2.7 | 3.04 -13% | 4.57 -69% | 5.1 -89% | 5.9 -119% | 3.32 -23% | 3.71 -37% | 4.28 ? -59% | 6.41 ? -137% |
Load Maximum * | 5.4 | 4.83 11% | 7.57 -40% | 7.9 -46% | 8.3 -54% | 5.34 1% | 9.3 -72% | 6.65 ? -23% | 9.61 ? -78% |
* ... smaller is better
Xiaomi Mi 9T 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9 SE 3070 mAh | Huawei P30 Lite 3340 mAh | Motorola Moto G7 Plus 3000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A50 4000 mAh | Sony Xperia 10 2870 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9 3300 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | -33% | -39% | -28% | -19% | -39% | -28% | |
Reader / Idle | 2138 | 1374 -36% | 1248 -42% | 1587 -26% | 1006 -53% | 1650 -23% | |
H.264 | 1208 | 853 -29% | 685 -43% | 809 -33% | 869 -28% | 620 -49% | 1008 -17% |
WiFi v1.3 | 991 | 510 -49% | 515 -48% | 715 -28% | 701 -29% | 541 -45% | 546 -45% |
Load | 258 | 218 -16% | 198 -23% | 196 -24% | 275 7% | 233 -10% | 194 -25% |
Pro
Contra
Xiaomi certamente traz novos smartphones para o mercado rapidamente. O Mi 9T segue o Mi 9 e Mi 9 SE, o esquema de nomenclatura que pode tornar os três dispositivos difíceis de distinguir. No entanto, o Mi 9T é mais do que apenas um Mi 9 melhorado.
O Xiaomi Mi 9T tem ótima duração da bateria, uma câmera selfie pop-up, uma ótima tela e um desempenho sólido. No geral, o 9T oferece mais do que a maioria dos smartphones de gama média, além de dificilmente ser mais barato do que o Mi 9.
Em primeiro lugar, o Mi 9T tem uma tela sem entalhes, com a Xiaomi incorporando uma câmera pop-up frontal virada para a frente para superar os entalhes que o Mi 9 e o Mi 9 SE têm. O Mi 9T também tem uma bateria substancialmente maior do que seus irmãos, o que dá ao dispositivo uma excelente duração de bateria e um conector para fones, algo que o Mi 9 e o Mi 9 SE não têm.
O 9T oferece mais desempenho do que o Mi 9 SE graças ao SoC Snapdragon 730, mas não consegue igualar a potência do Snapdragon 855 no Mi 9. O 9T tem o mesmo tamanho de tela que o Mi 9, que é 0,46 polegadas maior que o do Mi 9 SE. Os três dispositivos vêm com 6 GB de RAM.
Um ponto de atrito do Mi 9T é o seu preço. O modelo de 64 GB custa € 69 (~ US $ 77) mais barato que o Mi 9, que possui câmeras melhores e um SoC mais potente. Depois, há o Mi 9T Pro, também vendido como o Redmi K20 Pro, que também vem com um Snapdragon 855. Em suma, o Mi 9T é simultaneamente um excelente smartphone de gama média e uma venda difícil para a Xiaomi principalmente devido ao resto da série Mi 9.
Xiaomi Mi 9T
-
09/03/2022 v7 (old)
Manuel Masiero