Breve Análise do Smartphone Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro: Abundância de recursos por um preço baixo
Competing Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
82.9 % | 06/2020 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro SD 720G, Adreno 618 | 209 g | 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
79.8 % | 01/2020 | Samsung Galaxy A51 Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3 | 172 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
80.7 % | 11/2019 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4 | 200 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.53" | 2340x1080 | |
79.6 % | 06/2020 | Realme 6 Pro SD 720G, Adreno 618 | 195 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.60" | 2400x1080 | |
79.8 % | 01/2020 | Oppo A91 Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3 | 172 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.40" | 2400x1080 | |
81.3 % | 04/2020 | Huawei P40 Lite Kirin 810, Mali-G52 MP6 | 183 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.40" | 2310x1080 |
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 Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
Huawei P40 Lite | |
Oppo A91 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Realme 6 Pro | |
iperf3 receive AX12 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Huawei P40 Lite | |
Oppo A91 | |
Realme 6 Pro |
Image Comparison
Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the position on touchscreens. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.
Tageslicht-Szene 1Tageslicht-Szene 25-facher ZoomUltraweitwinkelLowlight-Umgebung![ColorChecker](fileadmin/_processed_/6/d/csm_Foto_RedmiNote9Pro_ColorChecker_475d75fd8b.jpg)
![ColorChecker](fileadmin/_processed_/0/1/csm_Foto_RedmiNote9Pro_ColorChecker_1Lux_19f3d0d288.jpg)
|
iluminação: 92 %
iluminação com acumulador: 610 cd/m²
Contraste: 1649:1 (Preto: 0.37 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.8 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.95
ΔE Greyscale 2.5 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
99.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.31
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro IPS, 2400x1080, 6.7" | Samsung Galaxy A51 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.5" | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro IPS, 2340x1080, 6.5" | Realme 6 Pro IPS, 2400x1080, 6.6" | Oppo A91 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.4" | Huawei P40 Lite IPS, 2310x1080, 6.4" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | -34% | -65% | -86% | -112% | -43% | |
Brightness middle | 610 | 589 -3% | 669 10% | 442 -28% | 594 -3% | 478 -22% |
Brightness | 579 | 589 2% | 630 9% | 419 -28% | 613 6% | 448 -23% |
Brightness Distribution | 92 | 94 2% | 87 -5% | 90 -2% | 89 -3% | 87 -5% |
Black Level * | 0.37 | 0.42 -14% | 0.37 -0% | 0.49 -32% | ||
Contrast | 1649 | 1593 -3% | 1195 -28% | 976 -41% | ||
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.8 | 2.22 -23% | 4.8 -167% | 6.1 -239% | 6.1 -239% | 3 -67% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 3 | 8.24 -175% | 9 -200% | 9.7 -223% | 10.6 -253% | 5.6 -87% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.5 | 2.6 -4% | 6.2 -148% | 5.9 -136% | 7 -180% | 4.1 -64% |
Gamma | 2.31 95% | 2.111 104% | 2.24 98% | 2.35 94% | 2.28 96% | 2.26 97% |
CCT | 6864 95% | 6508 100% | 7846 83% | 7631 85% | 7370 88% | 7282 89% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 2404 Hz | ≤ 43 % brightness setting | |
The display backlight flickers at 2404 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 43 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 2404 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 17373 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. |
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
25.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 10.8 ms rise | |
↘ 14.8 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. » 57 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (21.2 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
44.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 20.4 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. » 73 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (33.2 ms). |
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
Realme 6 Pro | |
Huawei P40 Lite | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (253274 - 288306, n=5) |
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 351, n=164, last 2 years) | |
Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (37.8 - 54.4, n=4) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
Realme 6 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (59.7 - 94.7, n=5) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 445, n=150, last 2 years) | |
Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (26.8 - 45.2, n=4) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) |
WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
Average of class Smartphone (38 - 304, n=94, last 2 years) | |
Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (53 - 78, n=5) | |
Realme 6 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 89112, n=207, last 2 years) | |
Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
Realme 6 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (11846 - 17734, n=5) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
Realme 6 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (2532 - 3577, n=5) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
Average of class Smartphone (388 - 28190, n=163, last 2 years) |
* ... smaller is better
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | Samsung Galaxy A51 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | Realme 6 Pro | Oppo A91 | Huawei P40 Lite | Average 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | -1% | 17% | 19% | -6% | 35% | -5% | 298% | |
Sequential Read 256KB | 498.1 | 496.1 0% | 535 7% | 513 3% | 505 1% | 913 83% | 513 ? 3% | 1717 ? 245% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 171.1 | 184.9 8% | 193.5 13% | 203.3 19% | 185.3 8% | 181.7 6% | 175.2 ? 2% | 1322 ? 673% |
Random Read 4KB | 122.6 | 110.8 -10% | 156.2 27% | 158.7 29% | 145.6 19% | 157.3 28% | 117.1 ? -4% | 265 ? 116% |
Random Write 4KB | 112.9 | 104.4 -8% | 180.4 60% | 154 36% | 28.55 -75% | 175.4 55% | 81.1 ? -28% | 292 ? 159% |
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 76.7 ? | 73 ? -5% | 71.6 ? -7% | 86.4 ? 13% | 77.2 ? 1% | 82.6 ? 8% | 73.4 ? -4% | |
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 54.9 ? | 60.1 ? 9% | 57.3 ? 4% | 63.4 ? 15% | 60.3 ? 10% | 70.6 ? 29% | 55.4 ? 1% |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 38.4 °C / 101 F, compared to the average of 35 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 56 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 38.5 °C / 101 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.1 °C / 81 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 30.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 27% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 64% 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, 44% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (79.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (25.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 59% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 34% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 76% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 19% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
desligado | ![]() ![]() |
Ocioso | ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Carga |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro 5020 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A51 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro 4500 mAh | Realme 6 Pro 4300 mAh | Oppo A91 4025 mAh | Huawei P40 Lite 4200 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | -5% | -14% | -11% | 15% | 3% | -4% | -13% | |
Idle Minimum * | 0.75 | 0.9 -20% | 0.79 -5% | 0.92 -23% | 0.82 -9% | 0.79 -5% | 0.982 ? -31% | 0.902 ? -20% |
Idle Average * | 2.19 | 1.7 22% | 2.32 -6% | 1.79 18% | 1.73 21% | 2.14 2% | 1.94 ? 11% | 1.448 ? 34% |
Idle Maximum * | 2.24 | 1.8 20% | 2.38 -6% | 1.88 16% | 1.75 22% | 2.23 -0% | 2.06 ? 8% | 1.608 ? 28% |
Load Average * | 3.88 | 5.2 -34% | 4.72 -22% | 5.41 -39% | 2.33 40% | 3.6 7% | 4.02 ? -4% | 6.1 ? -57% |
Load Maximum * | 5.97 | 6.6 -11% | 7.68 -29% | 7.59 -27% | 5.97 -0% | 5.17 13% | 6.16 ? -3% | 9.04 ? -51% |
* ... smaller is better
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro 5020 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A51 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro 4500 mAh | Realme 6 Pro 4300 mAh | Oppo A91 4025 mAh | Huawei P40 Lite 4200 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | -24% | -21% | -12% | -49% | -10% | |
Reader / Idle | 2336 | 1689 -28% | 1893 -19% | 2154 -8% | ||
H.264 | 1096 | 846 -23% | 984 -10% | 1176 7% | ||
WiFi v1.3 | 1175 | 698 -41% | 864 -26% | 1031 -12% | 605 -49% | 1007 -14% |
Load | 303 | 289 -5% | 212 -30% | 228 -25% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto - Mais uma vez com muitos recursos por um preço baixo
Com o Redmi Note 9 Pro, Xiaomi acrescentou outro smartphone que brilha com uma ótima relação preço-desempenho à sua carteira.
Por 250 Euros (~$282), oferece muito: Uma tela IPS brilhante de 6,67 polegadas, 6 GB de RAM, 64 ou 128 GB de armazenamento interno, o rápido SoC Snapdragon 720G octa-core e um sistema de câmera quadruplo com uma resolução de 64 MP. Graças à bateria de 5020-mAh, o Redmi Note 9 Pro atinge excelentes durações, o adaptador de energia de 33 watts carrega o smartphone rapidamente e há práticos extras, como uma bandeja de cartão grande que aceita simultaneamente um microSD e dois cartões SIM.
O Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro oferece muito valor por seu preço, enquanto sua longa duração da bateria e características extras como o NFC o fazem sobressair da multidão.
Suas desvantagens, por outro lado, são poucas. Dito isto, a câmera de 64-MP não é tão impressionante quanto suas especificações poderiam sugerir, uma vez que, em última análise, ela é carente em termos de alcance dinâmico. Em contraste, o fato de os jogos serem limitados a 30 FPS não é um grande problema, particularmente porque raramente ficam abaixo desta marca de FPS. Embora o smartphone contenha bloatware de propaganda pré-instalado, os respectivos aplicativos podem ser excluídos.
O lançamento deste smartphone pode encher os compradores do Redmi Note 9S com pesar. Embora o Redmi Note 9 Pro seja fisicamente quase idêntico, ele oferece várias características superiores, incluindo um módulo NFC por um preço bastante baixo. No entanto, atualizar de um Redmi Note 8 Pro não vale muito a pena, já que houve apenas pequenas melhorias de geração para geração.
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
-
06/23/2020 v7 (old)
Manuel Masiero