Breve Análise do Tablet Chuwi HiPad
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 85 %
iluminação com acumulador: 408.7 cd/m²
Contraste: 801:1 (Preto: 0.51 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.13 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 4.4 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
Gamma: 2.24
| Chuwi HiPad IPS, 10.1", 1920x1200 | 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 M5 lite IPS, 10.1", 1920x1200 | Lenovo Tab 4 10 Plus IPS, 10.1", 1920x1200 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | ||||||
| Display P3 Coverage | 66.5 | |||||
| sRGB Coverage | 97.5 | |||||
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 67.5 | |||||
| Response Times | 88% | -13% | 3% | 22% | -18% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 33.2 ? | 4.8 ? 86% | 54.8 ? -65% | 44 ? -33% | 36 ? -8% | 52 ? -57% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 41.2 ? | 4 ? 90% | 24.8 ? 40% | 25.6 ? 38% | 20 ? 51% | 32 ? 22% |
| PWM Frequency | 240.4 ? | 1020 ? | 100 ? | |||
| Screen | 26% | 39% | 43% | -24% | 21% | |
| Brightness middle | 408.7 | 474 16% | 556 36% | 456 12% | 514 26% | 443 8% |
| Brightness | 396 | 477 20% | 514 30% | 426 8% | 492 24% | 428 8% |
| Brightness Distribution | 85 | 91 7% | 87 2% | 88 4% | 80 -6% | 94 11% |
| Black Level * | 0.51 | 0.42 18% | 0.31 39% | 0.96 -88% | 0.36 29% | |
| Contrast | 801 | 1324 65% | 1471 84% | 535 -33% | 1231 54% | |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.13 | 2.5 39% | 1.8 56% | 1.3 69% | 5.42 -31% | 3.3 20% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 7.34 | 5.8 21% | 3.2 56% | 3 59% | 9.84 -34% | 7.2 2% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 4.4 | 2.1 52% | 2.2 50% | 1.4 68% | 6.5 -48% | 2.9 34% |
| Gamma | 2.24 98% | 2.08 106% | 2.26 97% | 2.24 98% | 2.216 99% | 2.27 97% |
| CCT | 7389 88% | 6281 103% | 6819 95% | 6687 97% | 6780 96% | 6961 93% |
| 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) | 57% /
41% | 13% /
29% | 23% /
35% | -1% /
-15% | 2% /
13% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 41.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 25.2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 16 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. » 97 % 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 | ||
| 33.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 16.4 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 16.8 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. » 41 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). | ||
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 8743 (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 | |
| Average MediaTek Helio X27 MT6797X () | |
* ... smaller is better
| Chuwi HiPad 32 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 | Huawei MediaPad M5 lite 32 GB eMMC Flash | Lenovo Tab 4 10 Plus 64 GB eMMC Flash | Chuwi Hi9 Plus 64 GB eMMC Flash | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 164% | 43% | 150% | 33% | -4% | |
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 66.8 | 59.1 -12% | 60.4 -10% | 72.8 9% | 61.1 -9% | 20.44 -69% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 65.9 | 80.1 22% | 80.6 22% | 83.7 27% | 83.9 27% | 21.16 -68% |
| Random Write 4KB | 10.28 | 24.43 138% | 13.39 30% | 77.3 652% | 11.8 15% | 13.01 27% |
| Random Read 4KB | 40.21 | 142 253% | 71.1 77% | 73.5 83% | 37.3 -7% | 42.2 5% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 73.6 | 195.8 166% | 103.3 40% | 82.6 12% | 135.5 84% | 132.5 80% |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 144.3 | 741 414% | 285.6 98% | 308.1 114% | 270.1 87% | 145 0% |
» No benchmarks for this notebook found!
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 36 °C / 97 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 32 °C / 90 F, compared to the average of 33.2 °C / 92 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 23.8 °C / 75 F, compared to the device average of 30 °C / 86 F.
Chuwi HiPad audio analysis
(-) | not very loud speakers (68.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.1% higher than median
(-) | mids are not linear (17.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.3% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (11.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (34.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 92% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 6% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 22%, worst was 129%
Compared to all devices tested
» 92% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 7% 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 |   1.4 / 1.6 Watt |
| Ocioso |  2.7 / 5.5 / 5.6 Watt |
| Carga |
7 / 12.2 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Chuwi HiPad MT6797X, Mali-T880 MP4, 32 GB eMMC Flash, IPS, 1920x1200, 10.1" | 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 M5 lite Kirin 659, Mali-T830 MP2, 32 GB eMMC Flash, IPS, 1920x1200, 10.1" | Lenovo Tab 4 10 Plus 625, Adreno 506, 64 GB eMMC Flash, IPS, 1920x1200, 10.1" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 31% | 33% | -53% | 27% | 36% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 2.7 | 1.76 35% | 1.26 53% | 2.88 -7% | 2.8 -4% | 1.23 54% |
| Idle Average * | 5.5 | 4.22 23% | 4.22 23% | 4.8 13% | 3.3 40% | 3.92 29% |
| Idle Maximum * | 5.6 | 4.25 24% | 4.29 23% | 7.5 -34% | 3.9 30% | 4.03 28% |
| Load Average * | 7 | 4.52 35% | 5.48 22% | 16.9 -141% | 5.2 26% | 5 29% |
| Load Maximum * | 12.2 | 7.35 40% | 6.57 46% | 23.8 -95% | 7.2 41% | 7.09 42% |
* ... smaller is better
| Chuwi HiPad MT6797X, Mali-T880 MP4, 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 M5 lite Kirin 659, Mali-T830 MP2, Wh | Lenovo Tab 4 10 Plus 625, Adreno 506, 26.6 Wh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -20% | 52% | -27% | 38% | 5% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 616 | 495 -20% | 938 52% | 448 -27% | 852 38% | 647 5% |
| Reader / Idle | 1227 | 1960 | 771 | 2162 | 1625 | |
| Load | 245 | 385 | 180 | 299 | 256 |
Pro
Contra
Nós não esperamos muito na faixa de $200. Desempenho fluente, um chassi robusto e uma tela agradável talvez sejam nossas três principais exigências para um tablet barato "perfeito". No caso de Chuwi, o HiPad faz um “home run” em duas dessas três características.
O chassi de metal é talvez o destaque do HiPad. Seu formato fino e a estética preta e vermelha do tipo gamer dão uma impressão de um tablet mais caro. A tela táctil IPS em vidro também está acima da média em termos de precisão de cor e relação de contraste.
O desempenho é onde o HiPad falha. Ações simples como a rolagem de páginas ou a inicialização de aplicativos têm uma latência não encontrada em tablets mainstream ou smartphones carros-chefe. É aqui que o "orçamento" na categoria de orçamento começa a aparecer. Outros recursos auxiliares, como a câmera fraca, os alto-falantes deficientes e o carregamento lento, são mais fáceis de aceitar nesta faixa de preço, mas um desempenho mais fluente teria tornado a experiência geral do usuário mais perfeita. Felizmente, o tablet ainda é excelente para reprodução de vídeo FHD e para a navegação ocasional que seu público-alvo pode apreciar.
A tela é melhor do que esperávamos em termos de precisão de cor e contraste, para esta faixa de preço. A baixa taxa de quadros e o desempenho lento reduzem um atrativo tablet Android de baixo custo.
Chuwi HiPad
- 01/02/2019 v6 (old)
Allen Ngo
Price comparison
