Breve Análise do Smartphone Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S – Tela grande, preço baixo
Test Group
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
80.7 % v7 (old) | 05/2020 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S SD 720G, Adreno 618 | 209 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
76.6 % v7 (old) | 05/2020 | Motorola Moto G8 SD 665, Adreno 610 | 188 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.40" | 1560x720 | |
81.3 % v7 (old) | 04/2020 | Huawei P40 Lite Kirin 810, Mali-G52 MP6 | 183 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.40" | 2310x1080 | |
75.5 % v7 (old) | 12/2019 | Gigaset GS290 Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2 | 190 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.30" | 2340x1080 | |
80.7 % v7 (old) | 11/2019 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4 | 200 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.53" | 2340x1080 |
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 | |
Huawei P40 Lite | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
Gigaset GS290 | |
Motorola Moto G8 | |
iperf3 receive AX12 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
Huawei P40 Lite | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
Gigaset GS290 | |
Motorola Moto G8 |
|
iluminação: 94 %
iluminação com acumulador: 622 cd/m²
Contraste: 1111:1 (Preto: 0.56 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.98 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.93
ΔE Greyscale 4.5 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
114.9% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
Gamma: 2.206
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S IPS, 2400x1080, 6.7" | Motorola Moto G8 IPS, 1560x720, 6.4" | Huawei P40 Lite IPS, 2310x1080, 6.4" | Gigaset GS290 IPS, 2340x1080, 6.3" | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro IPS, 2340x1080, 6.5" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | 15% | 0% | 11% | -1% | |
Brightness middle | 622 | 504 -19% | 478 -23% | 465 -25% | 669 8% |
Brightness | 612 | 452 -26% | 448 -27% | 460 -25% | 630 3% |
Brightness Distribution | 94 | 83 -12% | 87 -7% | 88 -6% | 87 -7% |
Black Level * | 0.56 | 0.28 50% | 0.49 12% | 0.2 64% | 0.42 25% |
Contrast | 1111 | 1800 62% | 976 -12% | 2325 109% | 1593 43% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 3.98 | 3.84 4% | 3 25% | 5.3 -33% | 4.8 -21% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 7.33 | 6.1 17% | 5.6 24% | 7.3 -0% | 9 -23% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 4.5 | 2.7 40% | 4.1 9% | 4.2 7% | 6.2 -38% |
Gamma | 2.206 100% | 2.235 98% | 2.26 97% | 2.09 105% | 2.24 98% |
CCT | 7361 88% | 7125 91% | 7282 89% | 6558 99% | 7846 83% |
Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 114.9 |
* ... 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 8774 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. |
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
24 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 9 ms rise | |
↘ 15 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 ms rise | |
↘ 23 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). |
Geekbench 4.4 | |
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
Motorola Moto G8 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G () | |
Average of class Smartphone (844 - 9574, n=82, last 2 years) | |
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
Motorola Moto G8 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G () | |
Average of class Smartphone (2630 - 30323, n=82, last 2 years) | |
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
Average of class Smartphone (5192 - 18534, n=57, last 2 years) |
PCMark for Android | |
Work performance score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
Motorola Moto G8 | |
Huawei P40 Lite | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (9027 - 13821, n=7) | |
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
Motorola Moto G8 | |
Huawei P40 Lite | |
Gigaset GS290 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (7673 - 10181, n=7) |
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
Motorola Moto G8 | |
Huawei P40 Lite | |
Gigaset GS290 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (253274 - 288306, n=5) |
Basemark GPU 1.1 | |
1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro |
VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G () | |
Average of class Smartphone (2523 - 10071, n=6, last 2 years) |
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=162, last 2 years) | |
Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (37.8 - 54.4, n=4) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Motorola Moto G8 (Chrome 81) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (59.7 - 94.7, n=5) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Motorola Moto G8 (Chrome 81) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=148, last 2 years) | |
Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chome 81) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (26.8 - 45.2, n=4) | |
Motorola Moto G8 (Chome 81) |
WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=82, last 2 years) | |
Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (53 - 78, n=5) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Motorola Moto G8 (Chrome 81) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=204, last 2 years) | |
Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (11846 - 17734, n=5) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Motorola Moto G8 (Chrome 81) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
Motorola Moto G8 (Chrome 81) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (2532 - 3577, n=5) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=161, last 2 years) |
* ... smaller is better
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | Motorola Moto G8 | Huawei P40 Lite | Gigaset GS290 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | Average 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | -17% | 28% | -26% | 10% | -5% | 272% | |
Sequential Read 256KB | 496.6 | 301 -39% | 913 84% | 274.2 -45% | 535 8% | 530 ? 7% | 1834 ? 269% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 214.8 | 239 11% | 181.7 -15% | 196.8 -8% | 193.5 -10% | 212 ? -1% | 1426 ? 564% |
Random Read 4KB | 137 | 57.3 -58% | 157.3 15% | 54.7 -60% | 156.2 14% | 130.6 ? -5% | 278 ? 103% |
Random Write 4KB | 123.6 | 128.1 4% | 175.4 42% | 19.77 -84% | 180.4 46% | 101.2 ? -18% | 310 ? 151% |
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 74.5 ? | 68.7 ? -8% | 82.6 ? 11% | 81.1 ? 9% | 71.6 ? -4% | 68.3 ? -8% | |
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 54.9 ? | 48.7 ? -11% | 70.6 ? 29% | 73.9 ? 35% | 57.3 ? 4% | 53.2 ? -3% |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 39.9 °C / 104 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 39.9 °C / 104 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 33.4 °C / 92 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 64.7% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 64.7% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 64.7% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (119.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 87% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 3% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 96% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Motorola Moto G8 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 62.9% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 62.9% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 62.9% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (120.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 88% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 2% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 96% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
desligado | 0.1 / 0.3 Watt |
Ocioso | 1.5 / 2.1 / 2.5 Watt |
Carga |
5.2 / 7.5 Watt |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S 5020 mAh | Motorola Moto G8 4000 mAh | Huawei P40 Lite 4200 mAh | Gigaset GS290 4700 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro 4500 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | 7% | 24% | 19% | 10% | 20% | 11% | |
Idle Minimum * | 1.5 | 1.3 13% | 0.79 47% | 0.88 41% | 0.79 47% | 0.982 ? 35% | 0.895 ? 40% |
Idle Average * | 2.1 | 2 5% | 2.14 -2% | 2.05 2% | 2.32 -10% | 1.94 ? 8% | 1.447 ? 31% |
Idle Maximum * | 2.5 | 2.8 -12% | 2.23 11% | 2.1 16% | 2.38 5% | 2.06 ? 18% | 1.608 ? 36% |
Load Average * | 5.2 | 3.9 25% | 3.6 31% | 4.73 9% | 4.72 9% | 4.02 ? 23% | 6.41 ? -23% |
Load Maximum * | 7.5 | 7.2 4% | 5.17 31% | 5.61 25% | 7.68 -2% | 6.16 ? 18% | 9.61 ? -28% |
* ... smaller is better
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S 5020 mAh | Motorola Moto G8 4000 mAh | Huawei P40 Lite 4200 mAh | Gigaset GS290 4700 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro 4500 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | -12% | -11% | -21% | -22% | |
Reader / Idle | 2263 | 1953 -14% | 2154 -5% | 1893 -16% | |
H.264 | 1269 | 1048 -17% | 1176 -7% | 984 -22% | |
WiFi v1.3 | 1187 | 988 -17% | 1007 -15% | 934 -21% | 864 -27% |
Load | 279 | 276 -1% | 228 -18% | 212 -24% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto – Muito a Oferecer
O Redmi Note 9S da Xiaomi é a prova viva de que 200 dólares irão lhe dar um ótimo smartphone em 2020, tanto em termos de tamanho quanto em termos de equipamento e conectividade. É claro que você não deve esperar níveis de desempenho LTE semelhantes aos dos smartphones de gama alta, Wi-Fi 6 ou NFC.
O que a Redmi Note 9S tem a oferecer em troca é um conjunto flexível e versátil de câmeras com múltiplas lentes bem utilizáveis. Mais uma vez, não espere o mesmo nível de qualidade fotográfica que em smartphones de gama alta muito mais caros, mas abaixar um pouco suas expectativas será mais do que suficiente para aceitar o sistema de câmera pelo que é.
Você também receberá uma bateria gigantesca, que é pelo menos parcialmente responsável pelo alto peso do Redmi, com quase 20 horas de duração em nosso teste Wi-Fi.
O Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S oferece uma câmera decente e longa duração da bateria a um preço baixo.
A tela brilhante poderia ter se beneficiado de uma relação de contraste mais alta. Os serviços de localização foram precisos o suficiente para o uso diário. Considerando sua classe de preço, a Note 9S foi bastante poderoso em geral. Ele não sofre de afogamento térmico sob carga e oferece um sistema Android atualizado no momento da redação.
No geral, o Redmi Note 9S merece o nosso total apoio, pois vem com ótimos recursos a um preço baixo.
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
-
05/19/2020 v7 (old)
Florian Schmitt