Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra - Smartphone de Gama Alta com um Cheiro de Imperfeição
Vergleichsgeräte
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
88.9 % v7 (old) | 04/2020 | Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11 | 219 g | 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.90" | 3200x1440 | |
87.1 % v7 (old) | 09/2019 | Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU | 226 g | 64 GB SSD | 6.50" | 2688x1242 | |
86.1 % v7 (old) | 03/2020 | Oppo Find X2 Pro SD 865, Adreno 650 | 202 g | 512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.70" | 3168x1440 | |
89 % v7 (old) | 12/2019 | Huawei Mate 30 Pro Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16 | 198 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.53" | 2400x1176 | |
86.9 % v7 (old) | 11/2019 | OnePlus 7T Pro SD 855+, Adreno 640 | 206 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.67" | 3120x1440 | |
84.6 % v7 (old) | 10/2019 | LG G8X ThinQ SD 855, Adreno 640 | 192 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.40" | 2340x1080 | |
87.4 % v7 (old) | 04/2019 | Samsung Galaxy S10 5G Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12 | 198 g | 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.70" | 3040x1440 |
Os Top 10
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Multimídia
» Os Top 10 Portáteis de Jogos
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Leves para Jogos
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Acessíveis de Escritório/Empresariais
» Os Top 10 Portáteis Premium de Escritório/Empresariais
» Os Top 10 dos Portáteis Workstation
» Os Top 10 Subportáteis
» Os Top 10 Ultrabooks
» Os Top 10 Conversíveis
» Os Top 10 Tablets
» Os Top 10 Smartphones
» A melhores Telas de Portáteis Analisadas Pela Notebookcheck
» Top 10 dos portáteis abaixo dos 500 Euros da Notebookcheck
» Top 10 dos Portáteis abaixo dos 300 Euros
Size Comparison
|
iluminação: 95 %
iluminação com acumulador: 734 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Preto: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.2 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 2.7 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
99.2% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.11
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra Dynamic AMOLED 2X, 3200x1440, 6.9" | Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max OLED, 2688x1242, 6.5" | Oppo Find X2 Pro AMOLED, 3168x1440, 6.7" | Huawei Mate 30 Pro OLED, 2400x1176, 6.5" | OnePlus 7T Pro AMOLED, 3120x1440, 6.7" | LG G8X ThinQ OLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | 25% | -27% | 1% | 0% | -50% | |
Brightness middle | 734 | 790 8% | 778 6% | 592 -19% | 606 -17% | 570 -22% |
Brightness | 748 | 790 6% | 775 4% | 605 -19% | 611 -18% | 581 -22% |
Brightness Distribution | 95 | 97 2% | 99 4% | 96 1% | 95 0% | 90 -5% |
Black Level * | ||||||
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 3.2 | 1.4 56% | 4.4 -38% | 2.5 22% | 3.46 -8% | 6.27 -96% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 6.8 | 3.4 50% | 8.7 -28% | 5.5 19% | 5.64 17% | 9.75 -43% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.7 | 1.9 30% | 5.6 -107% | 2.6 4% | 2 26% | 5.7 -111% |
Gamma | 2.11 104% | 2.23 99% | 2.26 97% | 2.16 102% | 2.258 97% | 2.37 93% |
CCT | 6299 103% | 6466 101% | 7250 90% | 6173 105% | 6779 96% | 7309 89% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 240.4 Hz | ≤ 99 % brightness setting | |
The display backlight flickers at 240.4 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 99 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 240.4 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 8746 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. |
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
2.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 1.2 ms rise | |
↘ 1.6 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. » 10 % 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 | ||
9.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 4.8 ms rise | |
↘ 4.8 ms fall | ||
The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 19 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). |
PCMark for Android | |
Work performance score (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra | |
Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
OnePlus 7T Pro | |
LG G8X ThinQ | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (13627 - 14760, n=5) | |
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra | |
Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
OnePlus 7T Pro | |
LG G8X ThinQ | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (10008 - 11784, n=5) |
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra | |
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max | |
Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
OnePlus 7T Pro | |
LG G8X ThinQ | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (296746 - 527820, n=5) |
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=161, last 2 years) | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
LG G8X ThinQ (Chrome 78) | |
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (50.6 - 56.8, n=5) | |
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
LG G8X ThinQ (Chrome 78) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (89.3 - 96.2, n=5) | |
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=146, last 2 years) | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
LG G8X ThinQ (Chome 78) | |
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (50.8 - 64.4, n=4) |
WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (86 - 102, n=5) | |
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78) | |
LG G8X ThinQ (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=203, last 2 years) | |
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
LG G8X ThinQ (Chrome 78) | |
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (18094 - 20022, n=5) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (2294 - 2511, n=5) | |
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra (Chrome 80) | |
LG G8X ThinQ (Chrome 78) | |
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=160, last 2 years) | |
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1) |
* ... smaller is better
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra | Oppo Find X2 Pro | Huawei Mate 30 Pro | OnePlus 7T Pro | LG G8X ThinQ | Average 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | -1% | 6% | -39% | -35% | -7% | 49% | |
Sequential Read 256KB | 1632 | 1606 -2% | 1781 9% | 1489 -9% | 705 -57% | 1520 ? -7% | 1839 ? 13% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 697 | 729 5% | 401.8 -42% | 405 -42% | 497.1 -29% | 546 ? -22% | 1425 ? 104% |
Random Read 4KB | 202.4 | 202.6 0% | 226.4 12% | 169 -17% | 160.5 -21% | 206 ? 2% | 277 ? 37% |
Random Write 4KB | 221.4 | 205 -7% | 259.2 17% | 26 -88% | 30.2 -86% | 193.9 ? -12% | 309 ? 40% |
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 67.6 ? | 82.5 ? 22% | 68.9 ? 2% | 67.3 ? 0% | |||
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 58.3 ? | 69.2 ? 19% | 47.7 ? -18% | 55.7 ? -4% |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 35 °C / 95 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 63.2 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 34.1 °C / 93 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 30.1 °C / 86 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 20% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 71% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 41% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 51% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 15.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.7% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.8% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 23% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 69% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 44% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 49% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
desligado | 0.01 / 0.25 Watt |
Ocioso | 0.76 / 1.91 / 1.96 Watt |
Carga |
4.72 / 10.15 Watt |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5000 mAh | Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max 3969 mAh | Oppo Find X2 Pro 4260 mAh | Huawei Mate 30 Pro 4500 mAh | OnePlus 7T Pro 4085 mAh | LG G8X ThinQ 4000 mAh | Average Samsung Exynos 990 | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | -12% | -58% | 11% | -61% | 1% | 0% | -2% | |
Idle Minimum * | 0.76 | 0.92 -21% | 1.47 -93% | 0.87 -14% | 2.1 -176% | 1.1 -45% | 0.846 ? -11% | 0.894 ? -18% |
Idle Average * | 1.91 | 2.9 -52% | 3.43 -80% | 1.75 8% | 3 -57% | 1.49 22% | 1.534 ? 20% | 1.456 ? 24% |
Idle Maximum * | 1.96 | 2.94 -50% | 3.52 -80% | 1.83 7% | 3.5 -79% | 1.76 10% | 1.858 ? 5% | 1.616 ? 18% |
Load Average * | 4.72 | 3.65 23% | 6.2 -31% | 3.85 18% | 5.3 -12% | 4.2 11% | 5.14 ? -9% | 6.45 ? -37% |
Load Maximum * | 10.15 | 6.18 39% | 10.63 -5% | 6.64 35% | 8.3 18% | 9.2 9% | 10.7 ? -5% | 9.8 ? 3% |
* ... smaller is better
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5000 mAh | Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max 3969 mAh | Oppo Find X2 Pro 4260 mAh | Huawei Mate 30 Pro 4500 mAh | OnePlus 7T Pro 4085 mAh | LG G8X ThinQ 4000 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | 43% | -9% | 7% | 12% | 29% | |
Reader / Idle | 1858 | 2618 41% | 2174 17% | 2015 8% | ||
H.264 | 1131 | 1346 19% | 1098 -3% | 957 -15% | ||
WiFi v1.3 | 720 | 909 26% | 654 -9% | 823 14% | 912 27% | 930 29% |
Load | 221 | 408 85% | 219 -1% | 283 28% |
Pro
Contra
Veredicto – Caro e inacabado
Em teoria e de acordo com as especificações em papel, o Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra deve oferecer quase tudo o que você poderia desejar. Infelizmente, ele não atendeu às nossas expectativas de smartphones de gama alta em alguns aspectos.
Primeiro de tudo, vamos falar sobre o SoC. A Europa continua sendo a única região em todo o mundo onde a Samsung continua a vender os principais smartphones Galaxy equipados com o seu próprio SoC Exynos interno. Embora tenha apresentado desempenho mais lento em alguns benchmarks, essa não foi a nossa maior decepção. Em vez disso, o dano colateral é muito maior, como, por exemplo, a falta de suporte ao mmWave no modem 5G, embora, em teoria, deva suportar essa tecnologia. Além disso, o Exynos 990 teve um desempenho muito ruim sob uso intenso contínuo. Ainda não se sabe se isso foi causado por um sistema de resfriamento mal projetado ou um design medíocre de chip. A única maneira de saber seria uma comparação direta entre os dois SKUs, que ainda não conseguimos realizar.
O Galaxy S20 Ultra tem potencial para se tornar um smartphone de gama alta com seu próprio conjunto de experiências frustrantes para usuários com muita paciência.
Outra problema em potencial é a exibição. Embora ofereça cores brilhantes e possa ser extremamente brilhante, seu modo de 120 Hz é mais do que frustrante. Essa alta taxa de atualização não é apenas suportada em uma resolução reduzida FHD+, que é simplesmente muito baixa para uma tela desse tamanho, mas os jogos são completamente alheios às suas capacidades. Em nossos testes, não conseguimos obter taxas de quadros superiores a 60 FPS em nenhum jogo.
Sem dúvida, o destaque do S20 Ultra é sua câmera. Um grande sensor de 108 MP, zoom 100x, lente grande angular e muito mais do que você possa imaginar. E então, ao tirar fotos, você percebe repentinamente que a Samsung não conseguiu implementar um foco automático confiável. Uma bateria de 5.000 mAh deve prolongar a duração da bateria. Ou você poderia pensar, porque nossos testes revelaram muito espaço para melhorias.
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
- 08/31/2022 v7 (old)
Daniel Schmidt