Breve análise do Tablet Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 (LTE)

Name: Xiaomi Mi Pad 4
Brand: Xiaomi

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.

Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Florian Schmitt, ✓ Felicitas Krohn (traduzido por Ricardo Soto), Published 09/22/2018 🇺🇸 🇩🇪 ...

Android Touchscreen Tablet

Test device courtesy of tradingshenzhen.com

Download your licensed rating image as PNG / SVG

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.

see all specifications

Size Comparison

Amazon Fire HD 8 2017 Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8 Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4 Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 DIN A5 ❌

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: Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 (LTE) - Overview

GPS test: Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 (LTE) – Bridge

GPS test: Xiaomi Mi Pad 4 (LTE) – Wooded area

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 1 Scene 2 Scene 3

click to load images

click to load images

click to load images


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 Ø4.91
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 8705 (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
16 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 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 (20.9 ms).
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
42 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 21 ms rise
42 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 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 (32.8 ms).

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 - 11721, n=59, last 2 years)	4205 Points +81%
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 - 16435, n=59, last 2 years)	7265 Points +38%
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=59, last 2 years)	4862 Points +107%
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 - 57192, n=59, last 2 years)	9168 Points +306%
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 - 2051, n=59, last 2 years)	1269 Points +18%
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 - 9443, n=15, last 2 years)	3721 Points +127%
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 - 30983, n=15, last 2 years)	10683 Points +82%
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=7, last 2 years)	7758 Points +34%
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=18, last 2 years)	2615 Points +26%
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=18, last 2 years)	2648 Points +37%
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=18, last 2 years)	2806 Points +1%
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=46, last 2 years)	2067 Points +52%
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=46, last 2 years)	2198 Points +84%
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=46, last 2 years)	2797 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=68, last 2 years)	64 fps +36%
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 - 809, n=68, last 2 years)	191.4 fps +275%
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=68, last 2 years)	52.5 fps +150%
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=68, last 2 years)	111 fps +383%
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=68, last 2 years)	39.9 fps +207%
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=68, last 2 years)	79.4 fps +429%
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=67, last 2 years)	25.3 fps +205%
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=67, last 2 years)	47.3 fps +420%
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=87, last 2 years)	29371 Points +185%
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
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%
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%
Average of class Tablet (319 - 34733, n=75, last 2 years)	3734 ms * +2%
Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch (Chrome 54)	2823 ms * +26%

* ... smaller is better

	Xiaomi Mi Pad 4	Huawei Mediapad M3 Lite 8	Huawei MediaPad M3 8.4 inch	Amazon Fire HD 8 2017	Huawei MediaPad M5 8.4	Medion Lifetab P10606	Acer Iconia Tab 10 A3-A50	Average 64 GB eMMC Flash	Average of class Tablet
AndroBench 3-5		-60%	-45%	-61%	-12%	-35%	-47%	-21%	188%
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=204) -1%	1045 ?(163 - 3912, n=74, last 2 years) 276%
Sequential Write 256KB	207.9	38.01 -82%	117.2 -44%	47.23 -77%	132.2 -36%	74.2 -64%	92.4 -56%	176.6 ?(40 - 274, n=204) -15%	686 ?(78.2 - 3154, n=74, last 2 years) 230%
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=204) -37%	189.4 ?(18.4 - 451, n=74, last 2 years) 101%
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 ?(2.34 - 146.9, n=204) -59%	189.9 ?(8.23 - 555, n=74, last 2 years) 144%
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
	Configurações	Valor
	high	60 fps

PUBG Mobile
	Configurações	Valor
	Smooth	30 fps
	Balanced	24 fps

Heatmap of the front of the device under load

Heatmap of the rear of the device under load

Carga Máxima

Inatividade


41.1 °C	35.9 °C	37.9 °C
39.1 °C	35.9 °C	39.7 °C
37.2 °C	35.6 °C	38.6 °C

Máximo: 41.1 °C
Médio: 37.9 °C


35.4 °C	36.3 °C	40.5 °C
35.6 °C	36 °C	38.6 °C
35.5 °C	36.3 °C	37.3 °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.

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, 3% similar, 9% 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

desligado	0.2 / 0.6 Watt
Ocioso	1.2 / 2.2 / 4.1 Watt
Carga	8.2 / 12.2 Watt


Key: min: , med: , max: 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.

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