Notebookcheck Logo

Breve análise do Tablet Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 (LTE)

Good value for money, again.

O Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 oferece uma atraente tecnologia de quarta geração a um preço acessível, com apenas alguns pontos fracos. Descubra o que a Xiaomi fez e não fez bem nesta análise.
Android Touchscreen Tablet
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 (MiPad Serie)
Processador
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 8 x 2.2 GHz, Kryo 260
Placa gráfica
Qualcomm Adreno 512
Memória
3 GB 
, 3GB ou 4GB (versão LTE)
Pantalha
8.00 polegadas 16:10, 1920 x 1200 pixel 283 PPI, multi-touchscreen capacitiva, IPS LCD, Brilhante: sim
Disco rígido
64 GB eMMC Flash, 64 GB 
, 32GB ou 64GB (versão LTE), 51 GB livre
Conexões
1 USB 2.0, Conexões Audio: Conector 3,5 mm, Brightness Sensor, Sensores: Giroscópio, Bússola eletrônica, USB Type-C, Miracast, USB On-The-Go (OTG), Carregamento rápido
Funcionamento em rede
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/), Bluetooth 5.0, 4G/FDD-LTE: 850, 900, 1,800, 2,100, 2,600 MHz - B5, B8, B3, B1, B7. 4G/TD-LTE: 1,900, 2,100, 2,300, 2,500, 2,600 MHz - B39, B34, B40, B41, B38., LTE, GPS
Tamanho
altura x largura x profundidade (em mm): 7.9 x 200.2 x 120.3
Bateria
6000 mAh Lítio-Polímero
Sistema Operativo
Android 8.1 Oreo
Camera
Primary Camera: 13 MPix f/2.0
Secondary Camera: 5 MPix f/2.0
Características adicionais
Alto falantes: Alto-falantes estéreo, Teclado: Virtual, Cabo USB Type-A para USB Type-C, fonte de alimentação modular chinesa, MIUI 9, 12 Meses Garantia, fanless
peso
342.5 g, Suprimento de energia: 59 g
Preço
190 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4

Size Comparison

❌
214 mm 128 mm 9.7 mm 369 g215.5 mm 124.2 mm 7.3 mm 310 g213.3 mm 123.3 mm 7.5 mm 310 g212.6 mm 124.8 mm 7.3 mm 316 g200.2 mm 120.3 mm 7.9 mm 342.5 g210 mm 148 mm 1 mm 2.9 g
Networking
iperf3 transmit AX12
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
Adreno 512, SD 660, 64 GB eMMC Flash
450 MBit/s
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 950, 32 GB eMMC Flash
209 MBit/s -54%
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
Mali-G71 MP8, Kirin 960, 32 GB eMMC Flash
205 MBit/s -54%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
Mali-T720, MT8163 V/B 1.3 GHz, 16 GB eMMC Flash
86 MBit/s -81%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
Adreno 505, 435, 16 GB eMMC Flash
45.2 MBit/s -90%
iperf3 receive AX12
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
Adreno 512, SD 660, 64 GB eMMC Flash
446 MBit/s
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 950, 32 GB eMMC Flash
209 MBit/s -53%
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
Mali-G71 MP8, Kirin 960, 32 GB eMMC Flash
203 MBit/s -54%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
Mali-T720, MT8163 V/B 1.3 GHz, 16 GB eMMC Flash
99.3 MBit/s -78%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
Adreno 505, 435, 16 GB eMMC Flash
42.7 MBit/s -90%
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 – Overview
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 – Overview
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 – Bridge
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 – Bridge
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 – Wooded area
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 – Wooded area
GPS test: Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 (LTE) - Overview
GPS test: Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 (LTE) - Overview
GPS test: Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 (LTE) – Bridge
GPS test: Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 (LTE) – Bridge
GPS test: Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 (LTE) – Wooded area
GPS test: Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 (LTE) – Wooded area
HDR mode
HDR mode
Normal mode
Normal mode
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 – Camera settings
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 – Camera settings
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 – Video camera UI
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 – Video camera UI
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 – Video camera settings
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 – Video camera settings
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 – Camera UI
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 – Camera UI
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 – Camera filter options
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 – Camera filter options

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.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
orginal image
click to load images
Photo of our test chart
Photo of our test chart
Test chart in detail
409
cd/m²		398
cd/m²		375
cd/m²
414
cd/m²		454
cd/m²		402
cd/m²
425
cd/m²		419
cd/m²		406
cd/m²
Distribuição do brilho
tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2
Máximo: 454 cd/m² (Nits) Médio: 411.3 cd/m² Minimum: 1.69 cd/m²
iluminação: 83 %
iluminação com acumulador: 454 cd/m²
Contraste: 622:1 (Preto: 0.73 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.2 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.93
ΔE Greyscale 4.7 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
94.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.271
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
IPS LCD, 1920x1200, 8"		Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
IPS, 1920x1200, 8"		Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
IPS, 2560x1600, 8.4"		Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
IPS, 1280x800, 8"		Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
IPS, 2560x1600, 8.4"		Medion Lifetab P10606
IPS, 1920x1200, 10.1"		Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
IPS, 1920x1200, 10.1"
Screen
4%
5%
-16%
-10%
-46%
-16%
Brightness middle
454
409.1
-10%
460
1%
419
-8%
405
-11%
326
-28%
340
-25%
Brightness
411
402
-2%
445
8%
412
0%
392
-5%
338
-18%
320
-22%
Brightness Distribution
83
92
11%
90
8%
91
10%
92
11%
92
11%
84
1%
Black Level *
0.73
0.56
23%
0.45
38%
0.39
47%
0.67
8%
0.56
23%
0.19
74%
Contrast
622
731
18%
1022
64%
1074
73%
604
-3%
582
-6%
1789
188%
Colorchecker dE 2000 *
5.2
4.1
21%
6.2
-19%
8.5
-63%
5.78
-11%
9.1
-75%
15
-188%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *
8.36
9.6
-15%
10.5
-26%
13.8
-65%
9.82
-17%
18.2
-118%
22.8
-173%
Greyscale dE 2000 *
4.7
5.3
-13%
6.5
-38%
10.3
-119%
7.2
-53%
12
-155%
4
15%
Gamma
2.271 97%
2.2 100%
2.33 94%
2.6 85%
2.278 97%
2.32 95%
2.09 105%
CCT
7361 88%
7603 85%
8056 81%
6216 105%
8405 77%
11359 57%
6940 94%

* ... smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

ℹ
To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM detected 2358 Hz ≤ 10 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 2358 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 10 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 2358 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 8774 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured.

Display Response Times

ℹ
Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
   ↔    Response Time Black to White
16 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 5 ms rise
↘ 11 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. » 33 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21 ms).
   ↔    Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
42 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 21 ms rise
↘ 21 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. » 64 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms).
AnTuTu v7 | PCMark for Android | BaseMark OS II | Geekbench 4.4 | 3DMark | GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | GFXBench 3.0 | GFXBench 3.1 | GFXBench
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
181614 Points +28%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
142189 Points
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (116346 - 143551, n=10)
137699 Points -3%
Medion Lifetab P10606
44992 Points -68%
PCMark for Android
Work performance score
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
7053 Points +2%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
6926 Points
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (6274 - 7026, n=11)
6676 Points -4%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
5843 Points -16%
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
5204 Points -25%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
4843 Points -30%
Medion Lifetab P10606
4449 Points -36%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
4125 Points -40%
Work 2.0 performance score
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (5789 - 6426, n=13)
6050 Points 0%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
6047 Points
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
6006 Points -1%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
4827 Points -20%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
3744 Points -38%
Medion Lifetab P10606
3508 Points -42%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
2907 Points -52%
BaseMark OS II
Overall
Average of class Tablet (444 - 9147, n=57, last 2 years)
3887 Points +67%
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
2982 Points +28%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
2322 Points
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (1905 - 2428, n=12)
2307 Points -1%
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
1800 Points -22%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
1072 Points -54%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
1016 Points -56%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
640 Points -72%
Medion Lifetab P10606
313 Points -87%
System
Average of class Tablet (1103 - 14097, n=57, last 2 years)
6898 Points +31%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
5282 Points
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (3745 - 5282, n=11)
4927 Points -7%
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
3940 Points -25%
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
3581 Points -32%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
1980 Points -63%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
1957 Points -63%
Medion Lifetab P10606
1744 Points -67%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
1152 Points -78%
Memory
Average of class Tablet (916 - 10977, n=57, last 2 years)
4599 Points +96%
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
3985 Points +70%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (1737 - 2799, n=11)
2349 Points 0%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
2347 Points
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
2212 Points -6%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
1224 Points -48%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
968 Points -59%
Medion Lifetab P10606
772 Points -67%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
736 Points -69%
Graphics
Average of class Tablet (580 - 31738, n=57, last 2 years)
7340 Points +225%
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
4143 Points +84%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
2257 Points
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (1970 - 2332, n=11)
2241 Points -1%
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
1302 Points -42%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
777 Points -66%
Medion Lifetab P10606
729 Points -68%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
701 Points -69%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
334 Points -85%
Web
Average of class Tablet (10 - 1907, n=57, last 2 years)
1237 Points +15%
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
1215 Points +13%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (1027 - 1334, n=11)
1114 Points +3%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
1078 Points
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
1022 Points -5%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
803 Points -26%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
702 Points -35%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
593 Points -45%
Medion Lifetab P10606
10 Points -99%
Geekbench 4.4
64 Bit Single-Core Score
Average of class Tablet (745 - 5713, n=15, last 2 years)
3270 Points +99%
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
1896 Points +15%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
1642 Points
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (1431 - 1646, n=11)
1598 Points -3%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
1541 Points -6%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
670 Points -59%
Medion Lifetab P10606
658 Points -60%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
628 Points -62%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score
Average of class Tablet (1418 - 15310, n=15, last 2 years)
9145 Points +56%
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
6509 Points +11%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
5860 Points
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (4895 - 5913, n=11)
5694 Points -3%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
2821 Points -52%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
2489 Points -58%
Medion Lifetab P10606
2477 Points -58%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
1683 Points -71%
Compute RenderScript Score
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
11539 Points +99%
Average of class Tablet (2128 - 10799, n=8, last 2 years)
7455 Points +28%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
5811 Points
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (4983 - 5811, n=9)
5524 Points -5%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
3081 Points -47%
Medion Lifetab P10606
2091 Points -64%
3DMark
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
26702 Points
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (22145 - 26731, n=12)
25633 Points -4%
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
20230 Points -24%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
11209 Points -58%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
9948 Points -63%
Medion Lifetab P10606
9460 Points -65%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
5986 Points -78%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
29422 Points
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (25561 - 29496, n=12)
28454 Points -3%
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
22141 Points -25%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
11719 Points -60%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
10163 Points -65%
Medion Lifetab P10606
9602 Points -67%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
5435 Points -82%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
20173 Points
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (15088 - 21016, n=12)
19093 Points -5%
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
15538 Points -23%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
9729 Points -52%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
9274 Points -54%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
9264 Points -54%
Medion Lifetab P10606
8995 Points -55%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0
Average of class Tablet (507 - 5864, n=19, last 2 years)
2660 Points +28%
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
2513 Points +21%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
2071 Points
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (1825 - 2104, n=13)
2021 Points -2%
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
1139 Points -45%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
929 Points -55%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
620 Points -70%
Medion Lifetab P10606
570 Points -72%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
234 Points -89%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics
Average of class Tablet (454 - 6698, n=19, last 2 years)
2691 Points +39%
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
2501 Points +29%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
1936 Points
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (1711 - 1986, n=13)
1893 Points -2%
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
997 Points -49%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
884 Points -54%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
538 Points -72%
Medion Lifetab P10606
496 Points -74%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
193 Points -90%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics
Average of class Tablet (863 - 4085, n=19, last 2 years)
2839 Points +2%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
2780 Points
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (2383 - 2834, n=13)
2672 Points -4%
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
2555 Points -8%
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
2261 Points -19%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
1332 Points -52%
Medion Lifetab P10606
1199 Points -57%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
1128 Points -59%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
881 Points -68%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1)
Average of class Tablet (361 - 14235, n=48, last 2 years)
2062 Points +51%
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
1919 Points +41%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
1364 Points
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (1124 - 1374, n=15)
1328 Points -3%
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
970 Points -29%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
602 Points -56%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
320 Points -77%
Medion Lifetab P10606
292 Points -79%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
150 Points -89%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics
Average of class Tablet (290 - 24605, n=48, last 2 years)
2180 Points +82%
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
1778 Points +49%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
1195 Points
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (1061 - 1206, n=14)
1172 Points -2%
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
832 Points -30%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
557 Points -53%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
263 Points -78%
Medion Lifetab P10606
240 Points -80%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
121 Points -90%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics
Average of class Tablet (858 - 5751, n=48, last 2 years)
2810 Points +4%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
2700 Points
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
2653 Points -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (1883 - 2759, n=14)
2587 Points -4%
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
2322 Points -14%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
1324 Points -51%
Medion Lifetab P10606
1221 Points -55%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
878 Points -67%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
843 Points -69%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
T-Rex Onscreen
Average of class Tablet (14 - 144, n=67, last 2 years)
62.4 fps +33%
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
51 fps +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (42 - 59, n=14)
48.1 fps +2%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
47 fps
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
23 fps -51%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
17 fps -64%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
17 fps -64%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
16 fps -66%
Medion Lifetab P10606
15 fps -68%
1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen
Average of class Tablet (15 - 873, n=67, last 2 years)
178.7 fps +250%
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
78 fps +53%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
51 fps
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (43 - 51, n=14)
48.4 fps -5%
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
29 fps -43%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
18 fps -65%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
17 fps -67%
Medion Lifetab P10606
16 fps -69%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
9.9 fps -81%
GFXBench 3.0
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL
Average of class Tablet (8.1 - 122, n=67, last 2 years)
50.7 fps +141%
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
24 fps +14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (19 - 40, n=14)
22.6 fps +8%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
21 fps
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
9 fps -57%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
8.3 fps -60%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
7.6 fps -64%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
7.1 fps -66%
Medion Lifetab P10606
6.6 fps -69%
1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen
Average of class Tablet (7.3 - 530, n=67, last 2 years)
109.6 fps +377%
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
39 fps +70%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
23 fps
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (20 - 23, n=14)
22.1 fps -4%
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
13 fps -43%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
8.5 fps -63%
Medion Lifetab P10606
7.1 fps -69%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
6.9 fps -70%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
3.6 fps -84%
GFXBench 3.1
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen
Average of class Tablet (4.8 - 120, n=67, last 2 years)
38.3 fps +195%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (12 - 30, n=15)
14.7 fps +13%
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
14 fps +8%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
13 fps
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
5.7 fps -56%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
5 fps -62%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
4.6 fps -65%
Medion Lifetab P10606
4.3 fps -67%
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
4.2 fps -68%
1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen
Average of class Tablet (5 - 400, n=67, last 2 years)
77.1 fps +414%
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
27 fps +80%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
15 fps
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (8.2 - 15, n=14)
13.6 fps -9%
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
7.7 fps -49%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
6 fps -60%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
4.9 fps -67%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
2.3 fps -85%
Medion Lifetab P10606
2.2 fps -85%
GFXBench
on screen Car Chase Onscreen
Average of class Tablet (3.1 - 117.9, n=66, last 2 years)
24.2 fps +192%
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
9.3 fps +12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (7.5 - 18, n=15)
9.13 fps +10%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
8.3 fps
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
3.1 fps -63%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
3.1 fps -63%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
2.5 fps -70%
Medion Lifetab P10606
2.4 fps -71%
1920x1080 Car Chase Offscreen
Average of class Tablet (2.2 - 284, n=66, last 2 years)
46 fps +405%
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
16 fps +76%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
9.1 fps
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (8 - 9.1, n=14)
8.84 fps -3%
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
4.8 fps -47%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
3 fps -67%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
2.7 fps -70%
Medion Lifetab P10606
2.5 fps -73%

Legend

 
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Qualcomm Adreno 512, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8 Qualcomm Snapdragon 435, Qualcomm Adreno 505, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch HiSilicon Kirin 950, ARM Mali-T880 MP4, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017 MediaTek MT8163 V/B 1.3 GHz, ARM Mali-T720, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4 HiSilicon Kirin 960, ARM Mali-G71 MP8, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
Medion Lifetab P10606 Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Qualcomm Adreno 505, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50 Mediatek MT8176, PowerVR GX6250, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
 
Average of class Tablet
Octane V2 | WebXPRT 2015 | JetStream 1.1 | Mozilla Kraken 1.1
Octane V2 - Total Score
Average of class Tablet (763 - 105178, n=86, last 2 years)
28263 Points +174%
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch (Chrome 54)
11404 Points +11%
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4 (Chrome 66)
11338 Points +10%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 (Chrome 68)
10300 Points
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (8463 - 10945, n=14)
9973 Points -3%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50 (Browser: Chrome Version 63)
8897 Points -14%
Medion Lifetab P10606 (Chrome 60)
3059 Points -70%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8 (Google Chrome 61.0.3163.98)
3049 Points -70%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017 (Amazon Silk 58.2.3029.83.10)
2826 Points -73%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4 (Chrome 66)
184 Points +6%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 (Chrome 68)
173 Points
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (159 - 182, n=8)
170.9 Points -1%
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch (Chrome 54)
136 Points -21%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8 (Google Chrome 61.0.3163.98)
69 Points -60%
Medion Lifetab P10606 (Chrome 60)
63 Points -64%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017 (Amazon Silk 58.2.3029.83.10)
57 Points -67%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Tablet (last 2 years)
90.4 Points +65%
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4 (Chrome 66)
56.8 Points +4%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 (Chrome 68)
54.7 Points
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch (Chrome 54)
53.7 Points -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (45.3 - 55.5, n=12)
52 Points -5%
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50 (Browser: Chrome Version 63)
47.34 Points -13%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017 (Amazon Silk 58.2.3029.83.10)
19.52 Points -64%
Medion Lifetab P10606 (Chrome 60)
18.87 Points -66%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8 (Google Chrome 61.0.3163.98)
17.68 Points -68%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total
Medion Lifetab P10606 (Chrome 60)
12794 ms * -237%
Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8 (Google Chrome 61.0.3163.98)
12635 ms * -233%
Amazon Fire HD 8 2017 (Amazon Silk 58.2.3029.83.10)
11818 ms * -211%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 (3796 - 4769, n=13)
4115 ms * -8%
Average of class Tablet (319 - 34733, n=74, last 2 years)
3807 ms * -0%
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 (Chrome 68)
3796 ms *
Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50 (Browser: Chrome Version 63)
3756 ms * +1%
Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4 (Chrome 66)
3734 ms * +2%
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch (Chrome 54)
2823 ms * +26%

* ... smaller is better

Xiaomi Mi Pad 4Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inchAmazon Fire HD 8 2017Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4Medion Lifetab P10606Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50Average 64 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Tablet
AndroBench 3-5
-60%
-45%
-61%
-12%
-35%
-47%
-21%
171%
Sequential Read 256KB
277.6
135.1
-51%
249.7
-10%
159.1
-43%
268.6
-3%
274.7
-1%
173.7
-37%
274 ?(95.6 - 704, n=203)
-1%
957 ?(163 - 3466, n=72, last 2 years)
245%
Sequential Write 256KB
207.9
38.01
-82%
117.2
-44%
47.23
-77%
132.2
-36%
74.2
-64%
92.4
-56%
176.2 ?(40 - 274, n=203)
-15%
646 ?(78.2 - 3154, n=72, last 2 years)
211%
Random Read 4KB
94.2
35
-63%
32.04
-66%
21.55
-77%
62.8
-33%
34.59
-63%
13.7
-85%
59.4 ?(9.58 - 148.5, n=203)
-37%
185.8 ?(18.4 - 451, n=72, last 2 years)
97%
Random Write 4KB
77.9
7.64
-90%
31.35
-60%
11.51
-85%
65.1
-16%
12.02
-85%
8.77
-89%
32 ?(2.34 - 146.9, n=203)
-59%
178.1 ?(8.23 - 511, n=72, last 2 years)
129%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
84.2 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
87.7
4%
61.7 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-27%
51.1
-39%
84.9 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
1%
79.6 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-5%
80.4 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-5%
77.4 ?(21.1 - 107.6, n=144)
-8%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
61.2 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
14.6
-76%
23.52 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-62%
34.15
-44%
70.7 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
16%
64.9 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
6%
56.8 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-7%
58.3 ?(11.2 - 83.3, n=144)
-5%
Shadow Fight 3
 ConfiguraçõesValor
 high60 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
PUBG Mobile
 ConfiguraçõesValor
 Smooth30 fps
 Balanced24 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Heatmap of the front of the device under load
Heatmap of the front of the device under load
Heatmap of the rear of the device under load
Heatmap of the rear of the device under load
Carga Máxima
 41.1 °C35.9 °C37.9 °C 
 39.1 °C35.9 °C39.7 °C 
 37.2 °C35.6 °C38.6 °C 
Máximo: 41.1 °C
Médio: 37.9 °C
35.4 °C36.3 °C40.5 °C
35.6 °C36 °C38.6 °C
35.5 °C36.3 °C37.3 °C
Máximo: 40.5 °C
Médio: 36.8 °C
alimentação elétrica  44.5 °C | Temperatura do quarto 22 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 37.9 °C / 100 F, compared to the average of 30 °C / 86 F for the devices in the class Tablet.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 41.1 °C / 106 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 40.5 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 33.2 °C / 92 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.7 °C / 84 F, compared to the device average of 30 °C / 86 F.
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2032.346.42525.634.73125.731.44027.440.1503743.96323.327.28021.424.410021.724.912519.927.516017.439.32001751.625016.455.931514.557.640014.26650014.171.163012.673.880012.575.110001276.5125011.874.5160011.676200011.476.7250011.376.7315011.475400011.174.1500011.270.9630011.367.2800011.262.91000011.359.41250011.355.41600011.341.8SPL67.167.365.824.186.1N20.221.617.80.664.2median 12median 67.2median 41.8median 12.3median 75.1Delta4.513.12411.810.937.23738.33936.838.83737.433.936.133.934.932.635.932.23630.336.228.937.528.639.328.341.52845.326.74726502551.224.753.624.159.523.563.723.263.92361.822.764.622.367.322.566.222.365.522.161.422.165.52264.62257.721.949.135.675.82.634median 23.5median 57.7210.6hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseXiaomi Mi Pad 4Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 75.1% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 75.1% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 75.1% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (110.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 98% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 22%, worst was 129%
Compared to all devices tested
» 96% of all tested devices were better, 0% similar, 4% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (75.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 18.4% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (4.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.4% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (30.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 87% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 10% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 22%, worst was 129%
Compared to all devices tested
» 87% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 10% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Consumo de energia
desligadodarklight 0.2 / 0.6 Watt
Ociosodarkmidlight 1.2 / 2.2 / 4.1 Watt
Carga midlight 8.2 / 12.2 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
6000 mAh		Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
4800 mAh		Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
5100 mAh		Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
 mAh		Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
5100 mAh		Medion Lifetab P10606
7000 mAh		Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
6100 mAh
Power Consumption
-88%
-8%
24%
-21%
-22%
-78%
Idle Minimum *
1.2
4.02
-235%
1.51
-26%
0.99
17%
2.1
-75%
1.4
-17%
3.21
-168%
Idle Average *
2.2
6
-173%
3.64
-65%
2.74
-25%
3.74
-70%
4.17
-90%
5.97
-171%
Idle Maximum *
4.1
6.64
-62%
3.68
10%
2.83
31%
4.33
-6%
4.2
-2%
6.19
-51%
Load Average *
8.2
7.34
10%
6.95
15%
4.51
45%
6.32
23%
7.5
9%
9.72
-19%
Load Maximum *
12.2
9.6
21%
9.11
25%
5.69
53%
9.13
25%
13.71
-12%
9.97
18%

* ... smaller is better

Tempo de Execução da Bateria
Ocioso (sem WLAN, min brilho)
22h 44min
WiFi Websurfing
13h 47min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
15h 14min
Carga (máximo brilho)
3h 41min
Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
6000 mAh		Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8
4800 mAh		Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch
5100 mAh		Amazon Fire HD 8 2017
 mAh		Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4
5100 mAh		Medion Lifetab P10606
7000 mAh		Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50
6100 mAh
Battery Runtime
41%
-17%
25%
-7%
22%
-40%
Reader / Idle
1364
1382
1%
1110
-19%
2032
49%
1154
-15%
1506
10%
735
-46%
H.264
914
583
-36%
744
-19%
701
-23%
660
-28%
WiFi v1.3
827
877
6%
546
-34%
770
-7%
627
-24%
796
-4%
387
-53%
Load
221
480
117%
268
21%
393
78%
298
35%
463
110%
175
-21%

Pro

+ Valor pelo dinheiro incrivelmente bom
+ Wi-Fi rápido
+ Solidamente construído
+ Longa duração da bateria
+ Poderoso

Contra

- SoC desatualizado
- Tela de baixo contraste
- Câmera abaixo da média
- Módulo GPS relativamente impreciso
- PWM cintilante da tela
- Disponibilidade (dispositivo chinês)
- Software chinês
The Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 (LTE) in review. Test device courtesy of tradingshenzhen.com.
The Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 (LTE) in review. Test device courtesy of tradingshenzhen.com.

A Xiaomi conseguiu criar um tablet surpreendentemente bom com uma forte relação preço/desempenho. O Mi Pad 4 é um tablet de baixo custo que nos impressionou durante os testes, apesar de apenas ter hardware de gama média. 

Talvez seja esperado, a Xiaomi fez alguns compromissos para manter o custo baixo. No geral, o Mi Pad 4 é um excelente tablet para o dinheiro.

O Mi Pad 4 compete no mesmo nível de seus competidores Huawei, que são muito mais caros em termos de duração de bateria, desempenho e qualidade de acabamento. A Xiaomi até equipou o dispositivo com um módulo Wi-Fi mais rápido que todos os nossos dispositivos de comparação.

Alguns recursos, como a má implementação do desbloqueio facial, estragam a experiência geral. Da mesma forma, a tela tem uma taxa de contraste relativamente baixa e a câmera também poderia ser melhor. A omissão de um leitor de digitais e NFC, também parece ser uma oportunidade perdida.

Finalmente, vale a pena ter em mente que pelo momento, o Mi Pad 4 suporta apenas uma versão chinesa do MIUI e a variante LTE não suporta a banda LTE 20, que é comumente usada em toda a Europa.

Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 - 09/16/2019 v7 (old)
Marcus Herbrich

Acabamento
81 / 98 → 82%
Teclado
66 / 80 → 83%
Mouse
90%
Conectividade
44 / 70 → 63%
Peso
86 / 40-88 → 95%
Bateria
90%
Pantalha
81%
Desempenho do jogos
16 / 78 → 21%
Desempenho da aplicação
57 / 92 → 62%
Temperatura
89%
Ruído
100%
Audio
72 / 91 → 80%
Camera
44 / 85 → 52%
Médio
71%
82%
Tablet - Médio equilibrado

Price comparison

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Análises e revisões de portáteis e celulares > Análises > Análises > Breve análise do Tablet Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 (LTE)
Marcus Herbrich, 2018-09-22 (Update: 2018-09-30)