Breve Análise do Tablet Asus ZenPad 10.0 Z300M-6A039A
| AndroBench 3-5 | |
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard (sort by value) | |
| Asus ZenPad 10.0 Z300M-6A039A | |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard (sort by value) | |
| Asus ZenPad 10.0 Z300M-6A039A | |
| Networking | |
| iperf Server (receive) TCP 1 m (sort by value) | |
| Asus ZenPad 10.0 Z300M-6A039A | |
| Asus ZenPad 8.0 Z380M-6B026A | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab A 10.1 2016 SM-T585 | |
| iperf Client (transmit) TCP 1 m (sort by value) | |
| Asus ZenPad 10.0 Z300M-6A039A | |
| Asus ZenPad 8.0 Z380M-6B026A | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab A 10.1 2016 SM-T585 | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 89 %
iluminação com acumulador: 370 cd/m²
Contraste: 925:1 (Preto: 0.4 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.6 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 6.5 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
83.1% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.17
| Asus ZenPad 10.0 Z300M-6A039A IPS, 1280x800, 10.1" | Asus ZenPad 8.0 Z380M-6B026A IPS, 1280x800, 8" | Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro IPS, 1920x1200, 10.1" | Lenovo Yoga Tab 3 YT3-X50F IPS, 1280x800, 10.1" | Amazon Fire HD 10 inch 2015 IPS, 1280x800, 10.1" | Samsung Galaxy Tab A 9.7 SM-T555 TFT, 1024x768, 9.7" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -2% | -2% | 19% | 13% | 3% | |
| Brightness middle | 370 | 363 -2% | 392 6% | 363 -2% | 458 24% | 394 6% |
| Brightness | 351 | 348 -1% | 385 10% | 344 -2% | 434 24% | 392 12% |
| Brightness Distribution | 89 | 90 1% | 91 2% | 87 -2% | 86 -3% | 80 -10% |
| Black Level * | 0.4 | 0.26 35% | 0.59 -48% | 0.34 15% | 0.43 -8% | 0.51 -28% |
| Contrast | 925 | 1396 51% | 664 -28% | 1068 15% | 1065 15% | 773 -16% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.6 | 5.8 -26% | 4.5 2% | 3.25 29% | 4.18 9% | 3.59 22% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 9.5 | 17.8 -87% | 7.8 18% | 5.68 40% | ||
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 6.5 | 5.5 15% | 4.8 26% | 2.78 57% | 4.54 30% | 4.25 35% |
| Gamma | 2.17 101% | 2.24 98% | 2.47 89% | 2.23 99% | 2.15 102% | 2.56 86% |
| CCT | 6354 102% | 7388 88% | 7426 88% | 6722 97% | 7083 92% | 7148 91% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 50 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 14 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 36 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. » 99 % 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 | ||
| 68 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 22 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 46 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 (32.9 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 1923 Hz | ≤ 50 % brightness setting |  |
| ≤ 120 cd/m² brightness | |||
The display backlight flickers at 1923 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 50 % (120 cd/m²) and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 1923 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. Flickering occurs at relatively low brightness settings, so extended use at this brightness setting or lower can cause eyestrain. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8746 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
| Geekbench 3 | |
| 64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value) | |
| Asus ZenPad 10.0 Z300M-6A039A | |
| Asus ZenPad 8.0 Z380M-6B026A | |
| Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro | |
| 64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value) | |
| Asus ZenPad 10.0 Z300M-6A039A | |
| Asus ZenPad 8.0 Z380M-6B026A | |
| Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Asus ZenPad 10.0 Z300M-6A039A | |
| Asus ZenPad 8.0 Z380M-6B026A | |
| Amazon Fire HD 10 inch 2015 | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Asus ZenPad 10.0 Z300M-6A039A | |
| Asus ZenPad 8.0 Z380M-6B026A | |
| Amazon Fire HD 10 inch 2015 | |
| PCMark for Android - Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Asus ZenPad 10.0 Z300M-6A039A | |
| Asus ZenPad 8.0 Z380M-6B026A | |
| Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro | |
| Lenovo Yoga Tab 3 YT3-X50F | |
| Amazon Fire HD 10 inch 2015 | |
| AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Asus ZenPad 10.0 Z300M-6A039A | |
| Asus ZenPad 8.0 Z380M-6B026A | |
| Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro | |
| Lenovo Yoga Tab 3 YT3-X50F | |
| Amazon Fire HD 10 inch 2015 | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Asus ZenPad 10.0 Z300M-6A039A | |
| Asus ZenPad 8.0 Z380M-6B026A | |
| Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro | |
| Lenovo Yoga Tab 3 YT3-X50F | |
* ... smaller is better
| Asphalt 8: Airborne - high | |
| Asus ZenPad 10.0 Z300M-6A039A | |
| Asus ZenPad 8.0 Z380M-6B026A | |
| Dead Trigger 2 - high | |
| Asus ZenPad 10.0 Z300M-6A039A | |
| Asus ZenPad 8.0 Z380M-6B026A | |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 32.5 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F, ranging from 20.7 to 53.2 °C for the class Tablet.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 35.6 °C / 96 F, compared to the average of 33.3 °C / 92 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.4 °C / 83 F, compared to the device average of 30 °C / 86 F.
Asus ZenPad 10.0 Z300M-6A039A audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.1% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 65% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 29% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 22%, worst was 129%
Compared to all devices tested
» 63% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 31% 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 |   0.12 / 0.2 Watt |
| Ocioso |  1.22 / 3.15 / 3.39 Watt |
| Carga |
3.95 / 5.64 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Asus ZenPad 10.0 Z300M-6A039A 4680 mAh | Huawei MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro 6600 mAh | Lenovo Yoga Tab 3 YT3-X50F 10200 mAh | Amazon Fire HD 10 inch 2015 mAh | Samsung Galaxy Tab A 9.7 SM-T555 mAh | Asus ZenPad 8.0 Z380M-6B026A 4000 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -5% | 68% | -9% | 78% | 4% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1275 | 1230 -4% | 2830 122% | 1142 -10% | 2950 131% | 1305 2% |
| H.264 | 603 | 593 -2% | 740 23% | 624 3% | 624 3% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 435 | 416 -4% | 776 78% | 450 3% | 862 98% | 472 9% |
| Load | 279 | 248 -11% | 415 49% | 188 -33% | 297 6% | 287 3% |
Pro
Contra
Por quase 200 Euros (~$226), o ZenPad 10.0 Z300M apresenta um bom desempenho: O desempenho do hardware é suficiente em todos os cenários de aplicação, o módulo GPS pode competir contra um sistema de navegação dedicado, e a tela táctil é absolutamente convincente como dispositivos de entrada.
O desempenho puramente visual da tela é satisfatório, as não nos emociona. A resolução de 1280x800 pixels é basicamente baixa demais para um moderno aparelho de 10-polegadas - pelo menos quando a tela não pode servir com taxas de contraste top que poderiam mascarar a nitidez reduzida da imagem (como em nosso modelo de teste).
De outra forma, os (poucos) pontos negativos claros são os mesmos que aqueles que mencionamos no veredicto da análise do ZenPad 8.0, que são: a ausência do suporte para Wi-Fi 802.11ac, a pobre câmera frontal, e o lento leitor de cartões.
Isto não coloca a razão geral de preço-desempenho do Asus ZenPad 10.0 fundamentalmente em questão. Rivais de 10 polegadas com preço similar, como o MediaPad T2 10.0 Pro ou Amazon Fire HD 10, estão finalmente cheios de compromissos. Se o tamanho não for importante, pode valer a pena dar uma olhada no Asus ZenPad 8.0 dado que vem com uma tela melhor e durações um pouco mais longas, por 50 Euros (~56) a menos. No entanto, atualmente está disponível apenas com 16 GB de armazenamento interno.
Asus ZenPad 10.0 Z300M-6A039A
- 08/17/2016 v5.1 (old)
Oliver Moebel
Price comparison
