Breve Análise do Smartphone Xiaomi Pocophone F1
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium | |
| Xiaomi Poco F1 | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
| Honor 10 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium | |
| Xiaomi Poco F1 | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| Honor 10 | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 93 %
iluminação com acumulador: 489 cd/m²
Contraste: 1438:1 (Preto: 0.34 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.8 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 4.4 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
99.5% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.22
| Xiaomi Poco F1 IPS, 2246x1080, 6.2" | Honor 10 IPS, 2280x1080, 5.8" | OnePlus 6 Optic AMOLED, 2280x1080, 6.3" | Nokia 7 Plus IPS, 2160x1080, 6" | Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.2" | LG G7 ThinQ IPS, 3120x1440, 6.1" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 9% | 15% | 7% | 27% | 7% | |
| Brightness middle | 489 | 555 13% | 430 -12% | 458 -6% | 565 16% | 974 99% |
| Brightness | 486 | 537 10% | 437 -10% | 463 -5% | 571 17% | 975 101% |
| Brightness Distribution | 93 | 94 1% | 87 -6% | 92 -1% | 96 3% | 96 3% |
| Black Level * | 0.34 | 0.39 -15% | 0.22 35% | 0.49 -44% | ||
| Contrast | 1438 | 1423 -1% | 2082 45% | 1988 38% | ||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 3.8 | 2.3 39% | 2.3 39% | 4 -5% | 2.3 39% | 5.4 -42% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 7.1 | 6 15% | 4.6 35% | 7.4 -4% | 4.8 32% | 13.1 -85% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 4.4 | 3.9 11% | 2.4 45% | 4.7 -7% | 1.9 57% | 5 -14% |
| Gamma | 2.22 99% | 2.19 100% | 2.28 96% | 2.19 100% | 2.16 102% | 2.31 95% |
| CCT | 7213 90% | 6212 105% | 6160 106% | 7425 88% | 6332 103% | 7480 87% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 2315 Hz | ≤ 20 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 2315 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 20 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 2315 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 24 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 9.2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 14.8 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 50 % 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 | ||
| 44 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 21.6 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 22.4 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. » 71 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). | ||
| Lightmark - 1920x1080 1080p (sort by value) | |
| Nokia 7 Plus | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
| Huawei P20 Pro | |
| Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sort by value) | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| Nokia 7 Plus | |
| LG G7 ThinQ | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | |
| Huawei P20 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (1169 - 1201, n=5) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (205 - 7616, n=56, last 2 years) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66) | |
| OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (22.5 - 90.9, n=25) | |
| Xiaomi Poco F1 (Chrome 68) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium (Chrome 68) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
| Huawei P20 Pro (Chrome 65) | |
| Honor 10 (Chrome 66) | |
| Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=204, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66) | |
| LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3991 - 18275, n=28) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
| Xiaomi Poco F1 (Chrome 68) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium (Chrome 68) | |
| Huawei P20 Pro (Chrome 65) | |
| Honor 10 (Chrome 66) | |
| Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60) | |
| Honor 10 (Chrome 66) | |
| Huawei P20 Pro (Chrome 65) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium (Chrome 68) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2154 - 11204, n=28) | |
| Xiaomi Poco F1 (Chrome 68) | |
| LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66) | |
| OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=161, last 2 years) | |
| WebXPRT 2015 - Overall | |
| OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66) | |
| LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (96 - 291, n=23) | |
| Xiaomi Poco F1 (Chrome 68) | |
| Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium (Chrome 68) | |
| Huawei P20 Pro (Chrome 65) | |
| Honor 10 (Chrome 66) | |
| Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Xiaomi Poco F1 | Nokia 7 Plus | LG G7 ThinQ | Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus | Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium | Honor 10 | OnePlus 6 | Average 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -12% | 8% | 17% | -7% | 225% | 23% | 69% | 697% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 705 | 283.1 -60% | 695 -1% | 819 16% | 749 6% | 828 17% | 726 3% | 696 ? -1% | 1847 ? 162% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 155.6 | 211.6 36% | 176.4 13% | 204.9 32% | 171 10% | 192.1 23% | 201.4 29% | 224 ? 44% | 1436 ? 823% |
| Random Read 4KB | 101 | 54.7 -46% | 110.5 9% | 129.7 28% | 136 35% | 145.9 44% | 137 36% | 137.2 ? 36% | 277 ? 174% |
| Random Write 4KB | 17.81 | 19.62 10% | 23.26 31% | 22.74 28% | 21.75 22% | 163 815% | 21.8 22% | 84.7 ? 376% | 308 ? 1629% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 85.3 ? | 82.2 -4% | 84.7 ? -1% | 79.2 ? -7% | 34.18 ? -60% | 68.6 ? -20% | |||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 65.6 ? | 62.3 -5% | 62.7 ? -4% | 67.2 ? 2% | 30.23 ? -54% | 52.2 ? -20% |
PUBG Mobile
Arena of Valor
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 35.1 °C / 95 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 33.9 °C / 93 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.6 °C / 83 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Xiaomi Poco F1 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.2% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (10.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 50% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 41% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 68% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 25% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 34.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 50% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 41% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 68% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 25% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0.01 / 0.18 Watt |
| Ocioso |  0.65 / 1.97 / 2.01 Watt |
| Carga |
4.29 / 9.05 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Xiaomi Poco F1 4000 mAh | Nokia 7 Plus 3800 mAh | Honor 10 3400 mAh | OnePlus 6 3300 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus 3500 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 3% | -22% | 16% | 26% | -8% | -10% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.65 | 0.65 -0% | 1.12 -72% | 0.6 8% | 0.68 -5% | 0.862 ? -33% | 0.893 ? -37% |
| Idle Average * | 1.97 | 1.76 11% | 2.26 -15% | 1 49% | 0.95 52% | 1.728 ? 12% | 1.449 ? 26% |
| Idle Maximum * | 2.01 | 1.78 11% | 2.3 -14% | 1.6 20% | 1.09 46% | 2.07 ? -3% | 1.608 ? 20% |
| Load Average * | 4.29 | 4.47 -4% | 5.14 -20% | 4.3 -0% | 4.58 -7% | 4.87 ? -14% | 6.5 ? -52% |
| Load Maximum * | 9.05 | 9.13 -1% | 7.89 13% | 8.6 5% | 5.16 43% | 9.27 ? -2% | 9.87 ? -9% |
* ... smaller is better
| Xiaomi Poco F1 4000 mAh | Honor 10 3400 mAh | OnePlus 6 3300 mAh | Nokia 7 Plus 3800 mAh | LG G7 ThinQ 3000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus 3500 mAh | Huawei P20 Pro 4000 mAh | Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium 3540 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -23% | -6% | -22% | -8% | -23% | 4% | -26% | |
| Reader / Idle | 2088 | 1162 -44% | 1806 -14% | 1703 -18% | 1662 -20% | 1343 -36% | 1727 -17% | 1347 -35% |
| H.264 | 936 | 662 -29% | 791 -15% | 706 -25% | 908 -3% | 674 -28% | 784 -16% | 520 -44% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 808 | 663 -18% | 762 -6% | 672 -17% | 591 -27% | 521 -36% | 744 -8% | 547 -32% |
| Load | 220 | 216 -2% | 246 12% | 158 -28% | 260 18% | 237 8% | 345 57% | 235 7% |
Pro
Contra
A Xiaomi revigorizou o conceito original da OnePlus de criar um smartphone carro-chefe a um preço baixo. O Xiaomi Pocophone F1 se desempenhou bem em praticamente todos nossos testes, especialmente no que diz respeito à duração da bateria, qualidade da câmera e desempenho.
Nosso dispositivo de teste utiliza bem o SoC Snapdragon 845, mas o Pocophone não consegue atender as expectativas de sua tecnologia LiquidCool. Infelizmente, o SO nos bombardeou com anúncios, enquanto a falta do Amazon e Netflix HD poder ser um ponto decisivo para alguns.
O Xiaomi Pocophone F1 oferece um ótimo valor pelo dinheiro, particularmente pelo seu poderoso SoC, duração impressionante da bateria e excelentes câmeras. No entanto, para este preço, você terá que viver com alguns recortes.
O Pocophone poderia ter uma tela mais brilhante e melhor calibrada, mas a Xiaomi tinha que reduzir custos em algum lugar. A tela somente será um problemas quando quiser utilizar o dispositivo sob a luz do sol. Mas gostamos das câmeras. Certamente existem melhores câmeras lá fora, mas não muitas a este preço.
Nosso dispositivos de teste também tem outros pontos fracos, como a qualidade das chamadas e a recepção de rede, que são piores que os da concorrência. O design plástico é simples e obsoleto, em nossa opinião, mas isto é subjetivo.
O Xiaomi Pocophone F1 certamente é um forte candidato para aqueles que não desejam gastar mais de €350 em um smartphone.
Xiaomi Poco F1
- 11/04/2019 v7 (old)
Daniel Schmidt
Price comparison
