Breve Análise do Smartphone Xiaomi Redmi Note 6 Pro
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 88 %
iluminação com acumulador: 501 cd/m²
Contraste: 1139:1 (Preto: 0.44 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.3 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 1.5 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
99.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.29
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 6 Pro LCD IPS, 2280x1080, 6.3" | Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 IPS, 2160x1080, 6" | Xiaomi Redmi 6 Pro LCD IPS, 2280x1080, 5.8" | Xiaomi Mi 6X LCD IPS, 2160x1080, 6" | Honor 9 Lite IPS, 2160x1080, 5.7" | Nokia 6 2018 IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5" | BQ Aquaris X2 IPS LCD, 2160x1080, 5.7" | Huawei Mate 20 Pro OLED, 3120x1440, 6.3" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -50% | -55% | -81% | -33% | -91% | -55% | 19% | |
| Brightness middle | 501 | 518 3% | 554 11% | 459 -8% | 627 25% | 417 -17% | 631 26% | 576 15% |
| Brightness | 486 | 532 9% | 538 11% | 441 -9% | 622 28% | 421 -13% | 622 28% | 582 20% |
| Brightness Distribution | 88 | 94 7% | 91 3% | 91 3% | 82 -7% | 88 0% | 96 9% | 90 2% |
| Black Level * | 0.44 | 0.23 48% | 0.61 -39% | 0.47 -7% | 0.41 7% | 0.61 -39% | 0.61 -39% | |
| Contrast | 1139 | 2252 98% | 908 -20% | 977 -14% | 1529 34% | 684 -40% | 1034 -9% | |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 2.3 | 5.66 -146% | 4.86 -111% | 5.8 -152% | 4.5 -96% | 6.1 -165% | 5.5 -139% | 1.3 43% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 6.1 | 10.32 -69% | 8.46 -39% | 10.7 -75% | 7 -15% | 11.2 -84% | 8.5 -39% | 3.5 43% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1.5 | 6.8 -353% | 5.3 -253% | 7.3 -387% | 5.1 -240% | 7.1 -373% | 5.6 -273% | 1.6 -7% |
| Gamma | 2.29 96% | 2.269 97% | 2.281 96% | 2.28 96% | 2.26 97% | 2.16 102% | 2.38 92% | 2.18 101% |
| CCT | 6579 99% | 8564 76% | 7770 84% | 7984 81% | 7201 90% | 8362 78% | 7531 86% | 6561 99% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 2358 Hz | ≤ 19 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 2358 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 19 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 2358 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 8705 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 26.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 13.2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 13.6 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 64 % 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 | ||
| 48.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 24 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 24.4 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. » 82 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). | ||
| Basemark GPU 1.1 | |
| 1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Huawei Mate 20 Pro | |
| Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 6X | |
| BQ Aquaris X2 | |
| Huawei Mate 20 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 () | |
| 1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 6X | |
| BQ Aquaris X2 | |
| Huawei Mate 20 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 () | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 6X (Chrome 67) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (44.2 - 51.5, n=11) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 6 Pro (Chrome 70) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 (Chrome 67) | |
| BQ Aquaris X2 (Chrome 67) | |
| Nokia 6 2018 (Browser: Chrome 65) | |
| Honor 9 Lite (Chrome 63) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 6 Pro (Chrome 68) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=210, last 2 years) | |
| Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 6X (Chrome 67) | |
| BQ Aquaris X2 (Chrome 67) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (8163 - 9746, n=12) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 (Chrome 67) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 6 Pro (Chrome 70) | |
| Nokia 6 2018 (Browser: Chrome 65) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 6 Pro (Chrome 68) | |
| Honor 9 Lite (Chrome 63) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Honor 9 Lite (Chrome 63) | |
| Nokia 6 2018 (Browser: Chrome 65) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 6 Pro (Chrome 68) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 6X (Chrome 67) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 6 Pro (Chrome 70) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 (Chrome 67) | |
| BQ Aquaris X2 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (4105 - 5066, n=12) | |
| Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=167, last 2 years) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
| Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 6X (Chrome 67) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 (Chrome 66) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 6 Pro (Chrome 70) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (46 - 61, n=9) | |
| BQ Aquaris X2 (Chrome 67) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 6 Pro (Chrome 68) | |
| Nokia 6 2018 (Chrome 66) | |
| WebXPRT 2015 - Overall | |
| Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 6X (Chrome 67) | |
| BQ Aquaris X2 (Chrome 67) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 (Chrome 67) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 (147 - 184, n=8) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 6 Pro (Chrome 70) | |
| Nokia 6 2018 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 6 Pro (Chrome 68) | |
| Honor 9 Lite (Chrome 63) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 6 Pro | Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 | Xiaomi Redmi 6 Pro | Xiaomi Mi 6X | Honor 9 Lite | Nokia 6 2018 | BQ Aquaris X2 | Huawei Mate 20 Pro | Average 32 GB eMMC Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -15% | 18% | 3% | 8% | -19% | -8% | 100% | -25% | 617% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 278.9 | 287.6 3% | 278.7 0% | 272 -2% | 269.6 -3% | 272.6 -2% | 270.5 -3% | 853 206% | 242 ? -13% | 1887 ? 577% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 119.9 | 121.6 1% | 212.9 78% | 203.7 70% | 138.2 15% | 118.3 -1% | 188.7 57% | 196.4 64% | 100.5 ? -16% | 1471 ? 1127% |
| Random Read 4KB | 55.5 | 48.9 -12% | 66.9 21% | 73 32% | 68.4 23% | 38.78 -30% | 43.9 -21% | 157.4 184% | 43.2 ? -22% | 278 ? 401% |
| Random Write 4KB | 67.3 | 16.3 -76% | 72.6 8% | 6.89 -90% | 66.8 -1% | 15.3 -77% | 14.4 -79% | 157.8 134% | 22.4 ? -67% | 311 ? 362% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 83.9 ? | 83.4 -1% | 83.5 ? 0% | 83.1 ? -1% | 83.4 ? -1% | 82.9 ? -1% | 83.2 ? -1% | 71.8 ? -14% | ||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 63.7 ? | 62.4 -2% | 62.2 ? -2% | 71.9 ? 13% | 61.3 ? -4% | 62.3 ? -2% | 72.4 ? 14% | 52.9 ? -17% |
Dead Trigger 2
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 34.5 °C / 94 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 32.8 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 24.4 °C / 76 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Xiaomi Redmi Note 6 Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 30.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 33% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 59% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 52% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 40% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Xiaomi Redmi 6 Pro audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 63.6% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 63.6% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 63.6% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (121.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 89% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 2% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 97% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   0.01 / 0.1 Watt |
| Ocioso |  1.12 / 2.62 / 2.65 Watt |
| Carga |
3.65 / 5.73 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 6 Pro 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi 6 Pro 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 6X 3010 mAh | Honor 9 Lite 3000 mAh | Nokia 6 2018 3000 mAh | BQ Aquaris X2 3100 mAh | Huawei Mate 20 Pro 4200 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -15% | -13% | 13% | 19% | 30% | 9% | 4% | -4% | -9% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 1.12 | 1 11% | 1.3 -16% | 0.65 42% | 0.85 24% | 0.67 40% | 0.65 42% | 0.95 15% | 0.944 ? 16% | 0.88 ? 21% |
| Idle Average * | 2.62 | 2.6 1% | 2.1 20% | 1.94 26% | 2 24% | 1.76 33% | 2.24 15% | 2.17 17% | 2.22 ? 15% | 1.444 ? 45% |
| Idle Maximum * | 2.65 | 2.9 -9% | 3.7 -40% | 1.97 26% | 2.04 23% | 1.78 33% | 2.26 15% | 2.25 15% | 2.54 ? 4% | 1.6 ? 40% |
| Load Average * | 3.65 | 5 -37% | 4.5 -23% | 4.65 -27% | 3.23 12% | 2.82 23% | 3.87 -6% | 4.47 -22% | 4.51 ? -24% | 6.57 ? -80% |
| Load Maximum * | 5.73 | 8.2 -43% | 6 -5% | 5.93 -3% | 4.93 14% | 4.56 20% | 6.8 -19% | 6.15 -7% | 7.37 ? -29% | 9.91 ? -73% |
* ... smaller is better
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 6 Pro 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi 6 Pro 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 6X 3010 mAh | Honor 9 Lite 3000 mAh | Nokia 6 2018 3000 mAh | BQ Aquaris X2 3100 mAh | Huawei Mate 20 Pro 4200 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 7% | 17% | -32% | -26% | 12% | -36% | 4% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1151 | 1824 58% | 1765 53% | 1046 -9% | 965 -16% | 1833 59% | 1747 52% | |
| H.264 | 972 | 902 -7% | 1214 25% | 608 -37% | 622 -36% | 675 -31% | 854 -12% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 961 | 872 -9% | 868 -10% | 495 -48% | 601 -37% | 942 -2% | 617 -36% | 767 -20% |
| Load | 295 | 258 -13% | 293 -1% | 192 -35% | 253 -14% | 362 23% | 282 -4% |
Pro
Contra
Com o Redmi Note 6 Pro, o fabricante chinês oferece um pacote geral interessante na faixa de preço abaixo de 200 euros (~$228). Mesmo que as diferenças com o predecessor sejam pequenas, a Xiaomi fez os ajustes certos. A tonalidade azul que criticamos no predecessor não está mais presente no mais novo Redmi, mas o painel IPS integrado é o principal destaque do acessível smartphone de gama média. Graças à excelente reprodução de cores e um bom brilho, a tela de cristal líquido do Redmi Note 6 Pro é realmente boa de se olhar. Além disso, as câmeras embutidas e a bateria muito boa também são convincentes.
Ainda esperamos que uma atualização para a versão MIUI mais recente traga um melhor desempenho, já que neste ponto a superfície do sistema não é capaz de harmonizar 100% com o Snapdragon 636. Outras reclamações menores são a cintilação da tela para o controle de brilho que medimos, o alto-falante mono típico dessa faixa de preço e a falta de uma conexão USB Tipo-C que realmente deveria fazer parte do padrão em um modelo 2018.
Sem dúvida, o Redmi Note 6 Pro é um smartphone digno de uma recomendação. No entanto, considerando a ampla quantidade de muito bons modelos de gama média do mesmo fabricante, precisamos perguntar se outro campeão da relação preço-desempenho além dos dispositivos Android One Mi A2 e Mi A2 Lite era realmente necessário, dado que as diferenças de preço entre os modelos Mi e Redmi 6 Note Pro são muito pequenas e a diferença no equipamento também não é tão grande.
As melhorias de qualidade dos modelos de smartphones acessíveis têm acelerado nos últimos meses. Compradores potenciais não têm como errar ao escolher o Redmi Note 6 Pro.
Por uma vantagem de preço de cerca de 40 a 50 Euros (~$46-57), o Redmi Note 6 Pro também pode ser adquirido via empresas de importação como uma versão CN. No entanto, uma importação da China com os riscos e restrições associados pode não ser a melhor maneira de obter um novo smartphone. Pensamos, portanto, que os custos adicionais da versão disponível da UE valem a pena.
Xiaomi Redmi Note 6 Pro
- 10/31/2018 v6 (old)
Marcus Herbrich
Price comparison
