Breve Análise do Smartphone Xiaomi Redmi 8: Telefone de orçamento da Xiaomi define novos padrões
Device comparison
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
76.1 % v7 (old) | 01/2020 | Xiaomi Redmi 8 SD 439, Adreno 505 | 188 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.22" | 1520x720 | |
74.5 % v7 (old) | 12/2019 | Xiaomi Redmi 8A SD 439, Adreno 505 | 188 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 6.22" | 1520x720 | |
80.7 % v6 (old) | 04/2019 | Nokia 4.2 SD 439, Adreno 505 | 161 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 5.71" | 1520x720 | |
75.5 % v7 (old) | 07/2019 | Samsung Galaxy A20e Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2 | 141 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 5.80" | 1560x720 | |
75 % v7 (old) | 10/2019 | LG K50 Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320 | 170 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 6.26" | 1520x720 | |
80.5 % v6 (old) | 06/2019 | Wiko View 3 Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320 | 178 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.26" | 1520x720 |
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
Size Comparison
Networking | |
iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
LG K50 | |
Xiaomi Redmi 8A | |
Wiko View 3 | |
Xiaomi Redmi 8 | |
Samsung Galaxy A20e | |
Nokia 4.2 | |
iperf3 receive AX12 | |
Wiko View 3 | |
Samsung Galaxy A20e | |
LG K50 | |
Xiaomi Redmi 8 | |
Xiaomi Redmi 8A | |
Nokia 4.2 |
|
iluminação: 85 %
iluminação com acumulador: 554 cd/m²
Contraste: 2308:1 (Preto: 0.24 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.6 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 2.7 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
95.7% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.17
Xiaomi Redmi 8 IPS LCD, 1520x720, 6.2" | Xiaomi Redmi 8A IPS, 1520x720, 6.2" | Nokia 4.2 IPS, 1520x720, 5.7" | Samsung Galaxy A20e IPS, 1560x720, 5.8" | LG K50 IPS, 1520x720, 6.3" | Wiko View 3 IPS, 1520x720, 6.3" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | -47% | -54% | -82% | -45% | -28% | |
Brightness middle | 554 | 441 -20% | 445 -20% | 475 -14% | 489 -12% | 574 4% |
Brightness | 516 | 421 -18% | 424 -18% | 473 -8% | 453 -12% | 552 7% |
Brightness Distribution | 85 | 89 5% | 91 7% | 93 9% | 85 0% | 91 7% |
Black Level * | 0.24 | 0.38 -58% | 0.26 -8% | 0.35 -46% | 0.42 -75% | 0.19 21% |
Contrast | 2308 | 1161 -50% | 1712 -26% | 1357 -41% | 1164 -50% | 3021 31% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 2.6 | 4.46 -72% | 5.9 -127% | 6.8 -162% | 4.75 -83% | 5.5 -112% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 4.9 | 8.01 -63% | 9.3 -90% | 13.4 -173% | 7.75 -58% | 9.5 -94% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.7 | 5.4 -100% | 6.8 -152% | 8.7 -222% | 4.6 -70% | 5 -85% |
Gamma | 2.17 101% | 2.146 103% | 2.2 100% | 2.33 94% | 2.164 102% | 2.1 105% |
CCT | 6814 95% | 7901 82% | 8443 77% | 9385 69% | 7510 87% | 7610 85% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM not detected | |||
In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8715 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. |
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
41.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 22.8 ms rise | |
↘ 18.8 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. » 98 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
68.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 33.2 ms rise | |
↘ 35.6 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. » 98 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). |
PCMark for Android | |
Work performance score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi 8 | |
Xiaomi Redmi 8A | |
Nokia 4.2 | |
Samsung Galaxy A20e | |
LG K50 | |
Wiko View 3 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 439 (5880 - 6228, n=6) | |
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi 8 | |
Xiaomi Redmi 8A | |
Nokia 4.2 | |
Samsung Galaxy A20e | |
LG K50 | |
Wiko View 3 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 439 (4412 - 4791, n=6) |
GFXBench 3.1 | |
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi 8 | |
Xiaomi Redmi 8A | |
Nokia 4.2 | |
Samsung Galaxy A20e | |
LG K50 | |
Wiko View 3 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 439 (6 - 14, n=6) | |
Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 166, n=174, last 2 years) | |
1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi 8 | |
Xiaomi Redmi 8A | |
Nokia 4.2 | |
Samsung Galaxy A20e | |
LG K50 | |
Wiko View 3 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 439 (6.4 - 6.6, n=6) | |
Average of class Smartphone (8.3 - 365, n=174, last 2 years) |
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=169, last 2 years) | |
Samsung Galaxy A20e (Chrome 72.0.3626.121) | |
Xiaomi Redmi 8 (Chrome 79) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 439 (15.9 - 16.9, n=5) | |
Xiaomi Redmi 8A (Chrome 78) | |
Nokia 4.2 (Chrome 74) | |
Wiko View 3 (Chrome 75) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Samsung Galaxy A20e (Chrome 72.0.3626.121) | |
Nokia 4.2 (Chrome 74) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 439 (25.3 - 27.1, n=6) | |
Xiaomi Redmi 8 (Chrome 79) | |
Xiaomi Redmi 8A (Chrome 78) | |
LG K50 (Chrome 77) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=152, last 2 years) | |
Samsung Galaxy A20e (Chrome 72.0.3626.121) | |
Nokia 4.2 (Chrome 74) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 439 (17.4 - 18.5, n=5) | |
Xiaomi Redmi 8A (Chrome 78) | |
Xiaomi Redmi 8 (Chrome 79) |
WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
Samsung Galaxy A20e (Chrome 72.0.3626.121) | |
Nokia 4.2 (Chrome 74) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 439 (32 - 38, n=6) | |
Xiaomi Redmi 8 (Chrome 79) | |
Xiaomi Redmi 8A (Chrome 78) | |
LG K50 (Chrome 77) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=210, last 2 years) | |
Samsung Galaxy A20e (Chrome 72.0.3626.121) | |
Nokia 4.2 (Chrome 74) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 439 (4512 - 4958, n=6) | |
Xiaomi Redmi 8 (Chrome 79) | |
Xiaomi Redmi 8A (Chrome 78) | |
LG K50 (Chrome 77) | |
Wiko View 3 (Chrome 75) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
LG K50 (Chrome 77) | |
Wiko View 3 (Chrome 75) | |
Xiaomi Redmi 8A (Chrome 78) | |
Xiaomi Redmi 8 (Chrome 79) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 439 (9768 - 10143, n=6) | |
Nokia 4.2 (Chrome 74) | |
Samsung Galaxy A20e (Chrome 72.0.3626.121) | |
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=167, last 2 years) |
* ... smaller is better
Xiaomi Redmi 8 | Xiaomi Redmi 8A | Nokia 4.2 | Samsung Galaxy A20e | LG K50 | Wiko View 3 | Average 64 GB eMMC Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | 9% | -38% | 5% | -9% | -8% | 46% | 1395% | |
Sequential Read 256KB | 285.7 | 282 -1% | 220.4 -23% | 300.4 5% | 263.4 -8% | 287.3 1% | 274 ? -4% | 1887 ? 560% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 202.6 | 106.4 -47% | 18.17 -91% | 103.6 -49% | 78.9 -61% | 132.4 -35% | 176.6 ? -13% | 1471 ? 626% |
Random Read 4KB | 79 | 73.1 -7% | 17.51 -78% | 79.8 1% | 52.1 -34% | 55.2 -30% | 59.4 ? -25% | 278 ? 252% |
Random Write 4KB | 7.33 | 15.8 116% | 4.31 -41% | 13.18 80% | 12.03 64% | 8.98 23% | 32.2 ? 339% | 311 ? 4143% |
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 86.9 ? | 84.9 ? -2% | 86.7 ? 0% | 79.2 ? -9% | 78.9 ? -9% | 81.7 ? -6% | 77.4 ? -11% | |
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 63.6 ? | 61.7 ? -3% | 65.9 ? 4% | 64.3 ? 1% | 58.9 ? -7% | 63.6 ? 0% | 58.3 ? -8% |
PUBG Mobile
Asphalt 9: Legends
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 30.7 °C / 87 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 29.5 °C / 85 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.2 °C / 81 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Xiaomi Redmi 8 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 36.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.6% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (1.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 29% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 62% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 48% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 43% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Samsung Galaxy A20e audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.8% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (2.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 51% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 40% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 69% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 24% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
desligado | 0.01 / 0.12 Watt |
Ocioso | 0.57 / 1.8 / 1.82 Watt |
Carga |
2.57 / 4.12 Watt |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Xiaomi Redmi 8 5000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi 8A 5000 mAh | Nokia 4.2 3000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A20e 3000 mAh | LG K50 3500 mAh | Wiko View 3 4000 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 439 | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | -41% | -15% | 1% | 4% | 4% | -36% | -64% | |
Idle Minimum * | 0.57 | 0.9 -58% | 0.74 -30% | 0.66 -16% | 0.7 -23% | 0.67 -18% | 0.82 ? -44% | 0.883 ? -55% |
Idle Average * | 1.8 | 1.8 -0% | 1.9 -6% | 1.63 9% | 1 44% | 1.73 4% | 2.21 ? -23% | 1.467 ? 18% |
Idle Maximum * | 1.82 | 2.4 -32% | 2.21 -21% | 1.67 8% | 1.8 1% | 1.79 2% | 2.49 ? -37% | 1.621 ? 11% |
Load Average * | 2.57 | 4.3 -67% | 3.04 -18% | 2.77 -8% | 2.4 7% | 2.18 15% | 3.78 ? -47% | 6.55 ? -155% |
Load Maximum * | 4.12 | 6 -46% | 4.15 -1% | 3.66 11% | 4.5 -9% | 3.43 17% | 5.24 ? -27% | 9.9 ? -140% |
* ... smaller is better
Xiaomi Redmi 8 5000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi 8A 5000 mAh | Nokia 4.2 3000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A20e 3000 mAh | LG K50 3500 mAh | Wiko View 3 4000 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | 11% | -40% | -27% | -29% | -14% | |
Reader / Idle | 2521 | 1903 -25% | 1432 -43% | |||
H.264 | 798 | 1193 49% | 753 -6% | |||
WiFi v1.3 | 1157 | 1145 -1% | 696 -40% | 715 -38% | 822 -29% | 995 -14% |
Load | 308 | 367 19% | 250 -19% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto - O Xiaomi Redmi 8 define novos padrões para smartphones econômicos
O Redmi 8, que é muito semelhante ao Redmi 8A no papel, é uma atualização significativa em relação a seus irmãos, mesmo que pareçam quase idênticos. O primeiro não apenas possui câmeras aprimoradas e um alto-falante melhor, mas também possui melhor conectividade e uma tela visivelmente melhorada. No geral, embora tenhamos recomendado o Redmi 8A mais barato ao analisá-lo, o Redmi 8 oferece uma relação custo/benefício ainda melhor. Em suma, o mais recente smartphone Redmi de orçamento da Xiaomi define novos padrões para smartphones abaixo de 120 euros (~US$ 133), principalmente porque não possui deficiências sérias.
No entanto, a Xiaomi fez alguns compromissos, o que não é de surpreender, considerando o baixo preço recomendado do dispositivo. O Redmi 8 é e continua sendo um smartphone de nível de entrada. Consequentemente, a Xiaomi equipou o dispositivo com um SoC fraco, uma tela de baixa resolução, armazenamento flash eMMC e um módulo Wi-Fi lento. Por apenas 30 Euros (~US$ 33) a mais, o Redmi Note 8 é uma alternativa interessante ao Redmi 8, pois oferece desempenho notavelmente melhor com quase nenhum esforço maior.
O Xiaomi Redmi 8 oferece mais do que a maioria dos smartphones abaixo de 120 euros (~US$ 133). Se o preço é o fator limitante para o seu próximo smartphone, o Redmi 8 seria uma boa opção.
Xiaomi Redmi 8
- 01/20/2020 v7 (old)
Marcus Herbrich