Breve Análise do Tablet Alldocube X
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 83 %
iluminação com acumulador: 297.3 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.74 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 2.2 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
Gamma: 2.31
| Alldocube Alldocube X AMOLED, 10.5", 2560x1600 | Samsung Galaxy Tab S4 Super AMOLED, 10.5", 2560x1600 | Samsung Galaxy Tab A 10.5 SM-T590N IPS, 10.5", 1920x1200 | Microsoft Surface Go MHN-00003 Sharp SHP14A6, IPS, 10", 1800x1200 | Huawei MediaPad T5 10 IPS, 10.1", 1920x1200 | Apple iPad Pro 10.5 2017 IPS, 10.5", 2224x1668 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | ||||||
| Display P3 Coverage | 66.5 | |||||
| sRGB Coverage | 97.5 | |||||
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 67.5 | |||||
| Response Times | -29% | -1198% | -581% | -594% | -832% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 3.1 ? | 4.8 ? -55% | 54.8 ? -1668% | 44 ? -1319% | 28.4 ? -816% | 39.6 ? -1177% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 3 ? | 4 ? -33% | 24.8 ? -727% | 25.6 ? -753% | 29.8 ? -893% | 17.6 ? -487% |
| PWM Frequency | 238.1 ? | 240.4 ? 1% | 1020 ? 328% | 67.6 ? -72% | ||
| Screen | 42% | 52% | 49% | 33% | 57% | |
| Brightness middle | 297.3 | 474 59% | 556 87% | 456 53% | 356 20% | 634 113% |
| Brightness | 307 | 477 55% | 514 67% | 426 39% | 340 11% | 625 104% |
| Brightness Distribution | 83 | 91 10% | 87 5% | 88 6% | 92 11% | 87 5% |
| Black Level * | 0.42 | 0.31 | 0.5 | 0.39 | ||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 6.74 | 2.5 63% | 1.8 73% | 1.3 81% | 2.3 66% | 1.9 72% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 14.42 | 5.8 60% | 3.2 78% | 3 79% | 6.5 55% | 3.9 73% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.2 | 2.1 5% | 2.2 -0% | 1.4 36% | 1.4 36% | 2.8 -27% |
| Gamma | 2.31 95% | 2.08 106% | 2.26 97% | 2.24 98% | 2.16 102% | 2.26 97% |
| CCT | 6719 97% | 6281 103% | 6819 95% | 6687 97% | 6565 99% | 7027 93% |
| Contrast | 1324 | 1471 | 712 | 1626 | ||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 1.1 | |||||
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 62.3 | |||||
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 96.8 | |||||
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 7% /
18% | -573% /
-261% | -266% /
-161% | -281% /
-176% | -388% /
-166% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 1.3 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 1.7 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 11 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 3.1 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 1.7 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 1.4 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 10 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 238.1 Hz | ≤ 75 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 238.1 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 75 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 238.1 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below. 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. | |||
| Basemark GPU 1.1 | |
| 1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab S4 | |
| Vulkan Medium Native | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab S4 | |
| 1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab S4 | |
* ... smaller is better
| Alldocube Alldocube X 64 GB eMMC Flash | Samsung Galaxy Tab S4 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Samsung Galaxy Tab A 10.5 SM-T590N 32 GB eMMC Flash | Microsoft Surface Go MHN-00003 64 GB eMMC Flash | Huawei MediaPad T5 10 32 GB eMMC Flash | Chuwi HiPad 32 GB eMMC Flash | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 208% | 66% | 165% | 12% | ||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 66.1 | 59.1 -11% | 60.4 -9% | 72.5 10% | 66.8 1% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 87.2 | 80.1 -8% | 80.6 -8% | 83.9 -4% | 65.9 -24% | |
| Random Write 4KB | 11.62 | 24.43 110% | 13.39 15% | 76.1 555% | 10.28 -12% | |
| Random Read 4KB | 14.62 | 142 871% | 71.1 386% | 76.7 425% | 40.21 175% | |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 101.1 | 195.8 94% | 103.3 2% | 83.8 -17% | 73.6 -27% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 255.4 | 741 190% | 285.6 12% | 312.2 22% | 144.3 -44% |
| 3DMark Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited | 926 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 38.2 °C / 101 F, compared to the average of 33.7 °C / 93 F, ranging from 20.7 to 53.2 °C for the class Tablet.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 38.2 °C / 101 F, compared to the average of 33.2 °C / 92 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 25.8 °C / 78 F, compared to the device average of 30 °C / 86 F.
Alldocube Alldocube X audio analysis
(-) | not very loud speakers (71.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.2% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.8% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (31.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 89% of all tested devices in this class were better, 3% similar, 9% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 22%, worst was 129%
Compared to all devices tested
» 89% of all tested devices were better, 2% similar, 9% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 11.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (10.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 6% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 92% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 4% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 95% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado |   2.7 / 0.45 Watt |
| Ocioso |  3.8 / 5.9 / 6.3 Watt |
| Carga |
7.4 / 7.6 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Alldocube Alldocube X MT8176, PowerVR GX6250, 64 GB eMMC Flash, AMOLED, 2560x1600, 10.5" | Samsung Galaxy Tab S4 SD 835, Adreno 540, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, Super AMOLED, 2560x1600, 10.5" | Samsung Galaxy Tab A 10.5 SM-T590N SD 450, Adreno 506, 32 GB eMMC Flash, IPS, 1920x1200, 10.5" | Microsoft Surface Go MHN-00003 Pentium 4415Y, UHD Graphics 615, 64 GB eMMC Flash, IPS, 1800x1200, 10" | Huawei MediaPad T5 10 Kirin 659, Mali-T830 MP2, 32 GB eMMC Flash, IPS, 1920x1200, 10.1" | Apple iPad Pro 10.5 2017 A10X Fusion, A10X Fusion GPU, Toshiba THGBX669D4LLDXG 64 GB NAND , IPS, 2224x1668, 10.5" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 31% | 33% | -63% | -30% | 1% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 3.8 | 1.76 54% | 1.26 67% | 2.88 24% | 2.33 39% | 1.44 62% |
| Idle Average * | 5.9 | 4.22 28% | 4.22 28% | 4.8 19% | 8.46 -43% | 6.12 -4% |
| Idle Maximum * | 6.3 | 4.25 33% | 4.29 32% | 7.5 -19% | 8.49 -35% | 6.14 3% |
| Load Average * | 7.4 | 4.52 39% | 5.48 26% | 16.9 -128% | 11.14 -51% | 8.55 -16% |
| Load Maximum * | 7.6 | 7.35 3% | 6.57 14% | 23.8 -213% | 12.3 -62% | 10.62 -40% |
* ... smaller is better
| Alldocube Alldocube X MT8176, PowerVR GX6250, 30.4 Wh | Samsung Galaxy Tab S4 SD 835, Adreno 540, Wh | Samsung Galaxy Tab A 10.5 SM-T590N SD 450, Adreno 506, Wh | Microsoft Surface Go MHN-00003 Pentium 4415Y, UHD Graphics 615, 28 Wh | Huawei MediaPad T5 10 Kirin 659, Mali-T830 MP2, Wh | Apple iPad Pro 10.5 2017 A10X Fusion, A10X Fusion GPU, 30.8 Wh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 96% | 271% | 77% | 108% | 174% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 253 | 495 96% | 938 271% | 448 77% | 525 108% | 693 174% |
| Reader / Idle | 1227 | 1960 | 771 | 3329 | 2036 | |
| Load | 245 | 385 | 180 | 241 | 199 |
Pro
Contra
A Alldocube conseguiu criar um tablet de $270 com a mesma alta qualidade da tela AMOLED de 10,5 polegadas que o Samsung Galaxy Tab S4 de $650. Desde esta perspectiva, o Alldocube X é um sucesso, dado que sua tela é superior em comparação com a maioria dos outros tablets com paineis IPS nesta faixa de preço. Os tempos de resposta rápidos, os pretos profundos, o leitor de digitais e o design de marcos finos são raridades em sua categoria.
Cave um pouco mais profundo e as falhas começam a aparecer. A qualidade da câmera é, na melhor das hipóteses, medíocre, a tela poderia ser mais brilhante em exteriores, a duração da bateria está abaixo da média, o chassi leve é frágil e as cores são visivelmente imprecisas por padrão. Essas características são comuns em tablets de varejo que custam entre 200 e 300 dólares.
O Alldocube X é um tablet de extremos. Seu design e tela poderiam facilmente passar em um modelo de varejo por duas vezes o preço pedido, mas muitas de suas outras qualidades são mais representativas da categoria de orçamento. É um equilíbrio interessante que pode atrair usuários que estão intrigados com suas impressionantes primeiras impressões e não são rejeitadas por suas desvantagens, acima mencionadas.
Uma experiência de Galaxy Tab S4 por menos da metade do preço. O Alldocube X tinha um objetivo grandioso e de alguma forma consegue acertar em cheio em alguns aspectos. No entanto, para cada característica de gama alta que acerta, há outra característica em outro lugar que reduz tudo ao nível do orçamento.
Alldocube Alldocube X
- 01/13/2019 v6 (old)
Allen Ngo
Price comparison
