Notebookcheck

Courte critique du smartphone Blackview R7

Haut de gamme abordable? Smartphone haut de gamme abordable? Le R7 est le premier smartphone autoproclamé haut de gamme du constructeur chinois Blackview – pour un prix local d'environ 160 euros (~180 $ US). Notre test permettra d'en savoir plus sur les performances et possibilités de ce smartphone.
Marcus Herbrich, Tanja Hinum (traduit par Banibé TABOUKOUNA),
Blackview R7
Processeur
Mediatek Helio P10 MT6755 8 x 2 GHz, Cortex-A53
Carte graphique
ARM Mali-T860 MP2
Mémoire
4096 Mo 
Écran
5.50 pouces 16:9, 1920 x 1080 pixel 401 PPP, capacitif, LCD, IPS, brillant: oui
Disque dur
32 GB eMMC Flash, 32 Go 
, 25.43 Go libres
Connexions
1 USB 2.0, Connectique audio: prise casque 3.5 mm, Lecteur de cartes mémoires: micro-SD (jusqu'à 128 Go), 1 Lecteur d'empreintes digitales, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Capteurs: capteur de proximité, accéléromètre, OTG, Miracast
Réseau
802.11 b/g/n (b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4), Bluetooth 4.0, 2G: 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 MHz, 3G: 900 / 2100 MHz, 4G: LTE 800 / 900 / 1800 / 2100 / 2600 4G: 1900/ 2300/ 2600 MHz, Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Taille
Hauteur x Largeur x Profondeur (en mm): 8.9 x 152 x 78
Batterie
3000 mAh Lithium-Polymère, Autonomie de la batterie (selon les données du fabricant): 334 h, Autonomie de la batterie en communication 3G (selon les données du fabricant): 14 h
Système d'exploitation
Android 6.0 Marshmallow
Appareil photo
Appareil photo primaire: 13 MPix
Appareil photo secondaire: 8 MPix
Fonctionnalités additionnelles
Haut-parleurs: Mono, Clavier: virtuel, Rétroéclairage du clavier: oui, chargeur secteur,cable USB, film de protection d'écran, coque de protection, Blackview UI, 12 Mois Garantie, fanless
Poids
197 g, Alimentation: 93 g
Prix
160 euros
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Networking
iperf Server (receive) TCP 1 m
Xiaomi Mi 5
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
316 MBit/s ∼100% +210%
Blackview R7
Mali-T860 MP2, Helio P10 MT6755, 32 GB eMMC Flash
102 MBit/s ∼32%
Honor 5C
Mali-T830 MP2, Kirin 650, 16 GB eMMC Flash
49.8 MBit/s ∼16% -51%
iperf Client (transmit) TCP 1 m
Xiaomi Mi 5
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
265 MBit/s ∼100% +234%
Blackview R7
Mali-T860 MP2, Helio P10 MT6755, 32 GB eMMC Flash
79.4 MBit/s ∼30%
Honor 5C
Mali-T830 MP2, Kirin 650, 16 GB eMMC Flash
58.3 MBit/s ∼22% -27%
GPS Test Blackview R7
GPS Test Blackview R7
GPS Test Blackview R7
GPS Test Garmin Edge 500
GPS Test Garmin Edge 500
GPS Test Garmin Edge 500

Comparaison des images

Choisir une scène pour naviguer dans la première image. Un clic permet de changer le niveau de zoom, un autre clic permet de revenir à l'image originale dans une nouvelle fenêtre. La première image montre l'original pris par l'appareil testé.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
Cliquer pour charger les images
506
cd/m²
554
cd/m²
529
cd/m²
503
cd/m²
552
cd/m²
517
cd/m²
504
cd/m²
541
cd/m²
531
cd/m²
Homogénéité de la luminosité
LCD
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 554 cd/m² Moyenne: 526.3 cd/m² Minimum: 28.36 cd/m²
Homogénéité de la luminosité: 91 %
Valeur mesurée au centre, sur batterie: 552 cd/m²
Contraste: 863:1 (Valeurs des noirs: 0.64 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 11 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.7
ΔE Greyscale 14.3 | 0.64-98 Ø5.9
Gamma: 2.21
Blackview R7
IPS, 1920x1080, 5.50
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
IPS, 1280x720, 5.00
Coolpad Torino S
IPS, 1280x720, 4.70
LG K10
IPS, 1280x720, 5.30
Honor 5C
IPS, 1920x1080, 5.20
Xiaomi Mi 5
IPS, 1920x1080, 5.15
Screen
25%
12%
18%
22%
36%
Brightness middle
552
312
-43%
360
-35%
370
-33%
515
-7%
598
8%
Brightness
526
302
-43%
358
-32%
355
-33%
498
-5%
566
8%
Brightness Distribution
91
79
-13%
87
-4%
92
1%
93
2%
90
-1%
Black Level *
0.64
0.15
77%
0.45
30%
0.28
56%
0.49
23%
0.51
20%
Contrast
863
2080
141%
800
-7%
1321
53%
1051
22%
1173
36%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
11
8.2
25%
6.8
38%
6.7
39%
6.2
44%
3.5
68%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
20.8
16.5
21%
11.3
46%
17.8
14%
11.4
45%
6.1
71%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
14.3
9.2
36%
6.2
57%
7.9
45%
7.4
48%
3.5
76%
Gamma
2.21 100%
2.29 96%
2.14 103%
2.21 100%
2.28 96%
2.29 96%
CCT
12996 50%
9017 72%
7975 82%
9072 72%
8664 75%
6532 100%

* ... Moindre est la valeur, meilleures sont les performances

Temps de réponse de l'écran

Le temps de réponse d'un écran mesure la rapidité à laquelle l'écran est capable de changer une couleur pour une autre. Un temps de réponse élevé se traduit par une image floutée pour les objets en mouvement. Les joueurs bénéficieront de faibles latences d'affichage en jeu.
       Temps de réponse noir à blanc
28 ms ... hausse ↗ et chute ↘ combinées↗ 10 ms hausse
↘ 18 ms chute
L'écran souffre de latences relativement élevées, insuffisant pour le jeu.
En comparaison, tous les appareils testés affichent entre 0.8 (minimum) et 240 (maximum) ms. » 60 % des appareils testés affichent de meilleures performances.
Cela signifie que les latences relevées sont moins bonnes que la moyenne (24.3 ms) de tous les appareils testés.
       Temps de réponse gris 50% à gris 80%
32 ms ... hausse ↗ et chute ↘ combinées↗ 10 ms hausse
↘ 22 ms chute
L'écran souffre de latences très élevées, à éviter pour le jeu.
En comparaison, tous les appareils testés affichent entre 0.8 (minimum) et 636 (maximum) ms. » 24 % des appareils testés affichent de meilleures performances.
Cela signifie que les latences relevées sont meilleures que la moyenne (38.6 ms) de tous les appareils testés.

Scintillement / MLI (Modulation de largeur d'impulsion)

Afin d'abaisser la luminosité de l'écran, certains ordinateurs portables font varier très rapidement le rétroéclairage entre éteint et allumé. La fréquence à laquelle le rétroéclairage s'éteint et se rallume est normalement fixée à une valeur qui permet de rendre la variation indétectable à l'œil nu? Si la fréquence est trop basse, certaines personnes peuvent être sujettes à une fatigue oculaire, des maux de tête ou même percevoir les variations.
Scintillement / MLI (Modulation de largeur d'impulsion) non décelé

En comparaison, 51 % des appareils testés n'emploient pas MDI pour assombrir leur écran. Nous avons relevé une moyenne à 9596 (minimum : 5 - maximum : 142900) Hz dans le cas où une MDI était active.

AndroBench 3-5
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
11.87 MB/s ∼14%
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
12.62 MB/s ∼14% +6%
Coolpad Torino S
16.54 MB/s ∼19% +39%
LG K10
45 MB/s ∼52% +279%
Honor 5C
24.21 MB/s ∼28% +104%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
15.56 MB/s ∼16%
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
22.77 MB/s ∼24% +46%
Coolpad Torino S
25.79 MB/s ∼27% +66%
LG K10
75.47 MB/s ∼78% +385%
Honor 5C
51.93 MB/s ∼54% +234%
Random Write 4KB (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
11.4 MB/s ∼4%
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
8.26 MB/s ∼3% -28%
Coolpad Torino S
6.94 MB/s ∼2% -39%
LG K10
7.5 MB/s ∼2% -34%
Honor 5C
15.7 MB/s ∼5% +38%
Xiaomi Mi 5
13.61 MB/s ∼4% +19%
Random Read 4KB (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
28.02 MB/s ∼8%
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
18.24 MB/s ∼5% -35%
Coolpad Torino S
18.34 MB/s ∼5% -35%
LG K10
9.2 MB/s ∼2% -67%
Honor 5C
61.7 MB/s ∼17% +120%
Xiaomi Mi 5
106.78 MB/s ∼29% +281%
Sequential Write 256KB (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
122.67 MB/s ∼9%
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
70.33 MB/s ∼5% -43%
Coolpad Torino S
41.81 MB/s ∼3% -66%
LG K10
78 MB/s ∼6% -36%
Honor 5C
75.5 MB/s ∼6% -38%
Xiaomi Mi 5
159.29 MB/s ∼12% +30%
Sequential Read 256KB (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
247.58 MB/s ∼12%
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
187.34 MB/s ∼9% -24%
Coolpad Torino S
140.34 MB/s ∼7% -43%
LG K10
131 MB/s ∼6% -47%
Honor 5C
263 MB/s ∼13% +6%
Xiaomi Mi 5
459.64 MB/s ∼23% +86%
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
50572 Points ∼17%
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
23822 Points ∼8% -53%
Coolpad Torino S
22766 Points ∼8% -55%
LG K10
27383 Points ∼9% -46%
Honor 5C
53143 Points ∼18% +5%
Xiaomi Mi 5
116330 Points ∼40% +130%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
1155 Points ∼22%
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
618 Points ∼12% -46%
Coolpad Torino S
735 Points ∼14% -36%
LG K10
730 Points ∼14% -37%
Honor 5C
1418 Points ∼27% +23%
Xiaomi Mi 5
1976 Points ∼37% +71%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
518 Points ∼3%
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
101 Points ∼1% -81%
Coolpad Torino S
41 Points ∼0% -92%
LG K10
41 Points ∼0% -92%
Honor 5C
480 Points ∼3% -7%
Xiaomi Mi 5
4558 Points ∼27% +780%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
590 Points ∼5%
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
124 Points ∼1% -79%
Coolpad Torino S
52 Points ∼0% -91%
LG K10
52 Points ∼0% -91%
Honor 5C
563 Points ∼5% -5%
Xiaomi Mi 5
3542 Points ∼31% +500%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
12585 Points ∼13%
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
7026 Points ∼7% -44%
Coolpad Torino S
9205 Points ∼10% -27%
LG K10
9106 Points ∼9% -28%
Honor 5C
13588 Points ∼14% +8%
Xiaomi Mi 5
21483 Points ∼22% +71%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
10334 Points ∼2%
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
2645 Points ∼0% -74%
Coolpad Torino S
3858 Points ∼1% -63%
LG K10
3774 Points ∼1% -63%
Honor 5C
11319 Points ∼2% +10%
Xiaomi Mi 5
32613 Points ∼5% +216%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
10762 Points ∼4%
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
3070 Points ∼1% -71%
Coolpad Torino S
4430 Points ∼2% -59%
LG K10
4339 Points ∼2% -60%
Honor 5C
11755 Points ∼4% +9%
Xiaomi Mi 5
29246 Points ∼10% +172%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
17 fps ∼0%
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
4.9 fps ∼0% -71%
Coolpad Torino S
9.8 fps ∼0% -42%
LG K10
5.2 fps ∼0% -69%
Honor 5C
19 fps ∼0% +12%
Xiaomi Mi 5
90 fps ∼1% +429%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
17 fps ∼1%
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
8.2 fps ∼0% -52%
Coolpad Torino S
5.3 fps ∼0% -69%
LG K10
9.7 fps ∼0% -43%
Honor 5C
20 fps ∼1% +18%
Xiaomi Mi 5
60 fps ∼2% +253%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
4.7 fps ∼1%
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
3.4 fps ∼0% -28%
Coolpad Torino S
4.3 fps ∼0% -9%
LG K10
1.8 fps ∼0% -62%
Honor 5C
7.9 fps ∼1% +68%
Xiaomi Mi 5
42 fps ∼5% +794%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
4.7 fps ∼1%
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
1.8 fps ∼0% -62%
Coolpad Torino S
1.8 fps ∼0% -62%
LG K10
4.1 fps ∼1% -13%
Honor 5C
8.4 fps ∼2% +79%
Xiaomi Mi 5
42 fps ∼12% +794%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
2.5 fps ∼0%
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
2.5 fps ∼0% 0%
LG K10
fps ∼0% -100%
Honor 5C
4.5 fps ∼0% +80%
Xiaomi Mi 5
30 fps ∼1% +1100%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
2.5 fps ∼0%
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
1.2 fps ∼0% -52%
LG K10
fps ∼0% -100%
Honor 5C
4.9 fps ∼0% +96%
Xiaomi Mi 5
31 fps ∼1% +1140%
PCMark for Android - Work performance score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
4364 Points ∼22%
Coolpad Torino S
3932 Points ∼20% -10%
LG K10
3999 Points ∼20% -8%
Honor 5C
5120 Points ∼26% +17%
Xiaomi Mi 5
6873 Points ∼34% +57%
BaseMark OS II
Web (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
10 Points ∼0%
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
592 Points ∼29% +5820%
Coolpad Torino S
599 Points ∼29% +5890%
LG K10
562 Points ∼28% +5520%
Honor 5C
707 Points ∼35% +6970%
Xiaomi Mi 5
1106 Points ∼54% +10960%
Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
655 Points ∼2%
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
174 Points ∼1% -73%
Coolpad Torino S
321 Points ∼1% -51%
LG K10
310 Points ∼1% -53%
Honor 5C
814 Points ∼3% +24%
Xiaomi Mi 5
4522 Points ∼16% +590%
Memory (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
1030 Points ∼12%
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
487 Points ∼5% -53%
Coolpad Torino S
607 Points ∼7% -41%
LG K10
453 Points ∼5% -56%
Honor 5C
1504 Points ∼17% +46%
Xiaomi Mi 5
1801 Points ∼20% +75%
System (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
1971 Points ∼12%
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
801 Points ∼5% -59%
Coolpad Torino S
1102 Points ∼7% -44%
LG K10
1050 Points ∼6% -47%
Honor 5C
2600 Points ∼16% +32%
Xiaomi Mi 5
3638 Points ∼22% +85%
Overall (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
338 Points ∼4%
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
448 Points ∼5% +33%
Coolpad Torino S
602 Points ∼7% +78%
LG K10
536 Points ∼6% +59%
Honor 5C
1225 Points ∼14% +262%
Xiaomi Mi 5
2392 Points ∼28% +608%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
25.349 Points ∼7%
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
12.729 Points ∼3% -50%
Coolpad Torino S
14.453 Points ∼4% -43%
LG K10
17.478 Points ∼5% -31%
Honor 5C
27.934 Points ∼7% +10%
Xiaomi Mi 5
53.969 Points ∼14% +113%
Octane V2 - Total Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
3885 Points ∼7%
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
1910 Points ∼3% -51%
Coolpad Torino S
2364 Points ∼4% -39%
LG K10
2838 Points ∼5% -27%
Honor 5C
4188 Points ∼7% +8%
Xiaomi Mi 5
8619 Points ∼15% +122%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Blackview R7
9748.3 ms * ∼16%
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
19234.4 ms * ∼32% -97%
Coolpad Torino S
15784.4 ms * ∼27% -62%
LG K10
16638 ms * ∼28% -71%
Honor 5C
9111.2 ms * ∼15% +7%
Xiaomi Mi 5
2973.3 ms * ∼5% +69%

Légende

 
Blackview R7 Mediatek Helio P10 MT6755, ARM Mali-T860 MP2, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
ZTE Blade V7 Lite Mediatek MT6735, ARM Mali-T720, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Coolpad Torino S Qualcomm Snapdragon 410 MSM8916, Qualcomm Adreno 306, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
LG K10 Qualcomm Snapdragon 410 MSM8916, Qualcomm Adreno 306, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Honor 5C HiSilicon Kirin 650, ARM Mali-T830 MP2, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Xiaomi Mi 5 Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 MSM8996, Qualcomm Adreno 530, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash

* ... Moindre est la valeur, meilleures sont les performances

 38.4 °C34.4 °C33.4 °C 
 39 °C35.2 °C35.1 °C 
 37.8 °C34.8 °C33.7 °C 
Maximum: 39 °C
Moyenne: 35.8 °C
32.2 °C34.2 °C40.1 °C
32.5 °C33.8 °C41.8 °C
32.6 °C34 °C39.5 °C
Maximum: 41.8 °C
Moyenne: 35.6 °C
Alimentation (valeur maximale)  33.5 °C | Température ambiante de la pièce 21.1 °C | Voltcraft IR-350
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 35.8 °C / 96 F, compared to the average of 32.9 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 39 °C / 102 F, compared to the average of 35.3 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 41.8 °C / 107 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 31 °C / 88 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2024.323.124.324.32522.32122.722.33122.720.322.622.74023.723.229.623.75021.221.922.221.26319.119.32019.18017.617.118.517.610020.120.12120.112530.630.931.930.616016.71616.516.720018.218.317.318.225017.817.618.317.83151719.517.31740019.529.216.419.550027.13917.827.163030.643.414.830.68003850.915.738100042.35616.442.3125045.66015.845.6160047.861.713.647.8200050.963.114.850.9250050.26312.650.2315052.264.711.252.2400052.86510.952.8500053.4669.753.4630052.4659.652.4800048.6619.748.6100004153.69.4411250034.147.69.434.11600029.743.79.429.7SPL61.774.426.161.7N12.828.50.812.8median 38median 50.9median 14.8median 38Delta14.216.82.814.236.331.432.436.334.429.331.334.431.632.231.731.635.134.12635.138.134.939.438.13132.536.23126.427.228.626.427.527.725.427.527.531.121.327.526.827.523.326.830.627.122.530.638.429.922.438.446.432.921.346.45240.318.45260.847.817.560.865.85517.565.870.661.817.270.67463.816.87473.96317.373.968.957.917.468.968.857.416.668.868.857.717.368.868.65717.668.668.255.217.668.268.453.817.768.469.85517.469.874.359.417.774.375.160.417.975.169.954.818.169.966.35118.166.382.670.729.882.653.425.61.353.4median 68.4median 55median 17.7median 68.410.98.91.610.932.537.232.432.532.733.631.332.723.531.231.723.530.833.52630.841.139.139.441.132.933.436.232.928.930.728.628.926.425.825.426.427.324.821.327.328.325.823.328.332.62422.532.638.624.722.438.646.432.421.346.454.537.518.454.55942.917.55959.549.517.559.562.750.117.262.766.952.516.866.971.155.517.371.175.358.217.475.379.162.916.679.180.463.817.380.479.162.217.679.177.660.117.677.675.357.417.775.374.657.417.474.674.356.517.774.372.354.517.972.364.145.818.164.146.227.918.146.287.971.229.887.964.123.81.364.1median 64.1median 50.1median 17.7median 64.114.612.21.614.638.234.432.438.235.235.731.335.228.932.631.728.931.1322631.139.640.339.439.634.133.236.234.126.626.428.626.62622.625.42626.723.121.326.720.823.523.320.824.620.222.524.627.421.222.427.438.923.821.338.944.429.118.444.45134.417.55156.140.117.556.164.546.917.264.568.252.416.868.268.152.617.368.170.154.517.470.170.852.916.670.871.454.117.371.47054.117.6706952.817.66970.954.617.770.96750.217.46769.153.317.769.171.554.717.971.567.951.218.167.963.946.718.163.981.164.729.881.146.116.91.346.1median 67median 50.2median 17.7median 671412.11.614hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseBlackview R7ZTE Blade V7 LiteHonor 5CCoolpad Torino S
Blackview R7 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (74.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 30.5% lower than median
(-) | bass is not linear (15.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 9.8% lower than median
(-) | mids are not linear (15.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 11.7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (42.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 99% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 0% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 99% of all tested devices were better, 0% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

ZTE Blade V7 Lite audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.62 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 35.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 44% of all tested devices in this class were better, 13% similar, 43% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 65% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 27% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Honor 5C audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 30.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 7.1% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 12.1% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (2.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (32.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 92% of all tested devices in this class were better, 3% similar, 5% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 93% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 4% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Coolpad Torino S audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.09 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 39.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 7.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.8% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (28.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 79% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 15% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 86% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 11% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Consommation énergétique
Éteint/en veilledarklight 0.17 / 1.41 Watts
Au reposdarkmidlight 1.83 / 3.21 / 3.45 Watts
Fortement sollicité midlight 5.67 / 9.16 Watts
 color bar
Légende: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Blackview R7
3000 mAh
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
2500 mAh
Coolpad Torino S
1800 mAh
LG K10
2300 mAh
Honor 5C
3000 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 5
3000 mAh
Power Consumption
57%
45%
41%
31%
Idle Minimum *
1.83
0.63
66%
0.68
63%
0.89
51%
0.45
75%
Idle Average *
3.21
1.37
57%
2.2
31%
2.07
36%
1.68
48%
Idle Maximum *
3.45
1.71
50%
2.26
34%
2.15
38%
1.71
50%
Load Average *
5.67
2.82
50%
3.47
39%
3.46
39%
6.7
-18%
Load Maximum *
9.16
3.36
63%
3.71
59%
5.18
43%
9.18
-0%

* ... Moindre est la valeur, meilleures sont les performances

Autonomie
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
6h 52min
Blackview R7
3000 mAh
ZTE Blade V7 Lite
2500 mAh
Coolpad Torino S
1800 mAh
LG K10
2300 mAh
Honor 5C
3000 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 5
3000 mAh
Autonomie de la batterie
WiFi v1.3
412
517
25%
397
-4%
453
10%
584
42%
504
22%

Points positifs

+ résolution Full HD
+ 4 Go RAM
+ 32 Go ROM
+ écran IPS lumineux
+ capteur d'empreintes digitales
+ LTE (bande 20)
+ performances
+ rapport prix-performances

Points négatifs

- qualité de construction des boutons volume et power
- haut-parleurs
- camera pictures with color cast
- poids
- contraste de l'écran
Test: Blackview R7. Exemplaire de test fourni par Blackview.
Test: Blackview R7. Exemplaire de test fourni par Blackview.

Si on considère le Blackview R7 pour ce qu'il est réellement – un smartphone grand public abordable et pas vraiment un smartphone haut de gamme, notre verdict est plutôt positif. La mémoire interne de 32 Go et la RAM de 4 Go sont presque démesurées pour cette gamme de prix. Combinées à un Soc Mediatek Helio P10 SoC, la bonne fluidité du système est assurée. En dehors des boutons, même la qualité du châssis est convaincante. 

Les défauts se retrouvent du côté du lecteur de cartes micro-SD lent et de la qualité audio médiocre du haut-parleur. La caméra de 13 mégapixels qui produit des photos de bonne qualité en général, souffre d'un problème de dominance de couleur (rouge), qui affecte la qualité des photos - problème qui pourrait être corrigé par une mise à jour logicielle. Le R7 est également assez lourd (197 g) pour un smartphone de 5.5 pouces.

Le R7 ne comble pas toutes les attentes découlant de son excellente fiche technique - trop de compromis ont été faits. Il reste cependant un bon smartphone globalement au vu de son prix d'environ 160 euros (~180$ US).

Pour plus de détails, la version complète de ce test (en anglais) est disponible ici.

Blackview R7 - 09/05/2016 v5.1(old)
Marcus Herbrich

Châssis
84%
Clavier
68 / 75 → 91%
Dispositif de pointage
88%
Connectivité
43 / 60 → 72%
Poids
88%
Autonomie
89%
Écran
80%
Performances en jeu
23 / 63 → 36%
Performances dans les applications
39 / 70 → 56%
Chauffe
89%
Nuisance sonore
100%
Audio
50 / 91 → 55%
Appareil photo
61%
Moyenne
70%
80%
Smartphone - Moyenne compensée

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Revues et rapports de ordinateurs portatifs et smartphones, ordiphones > Critiques > Courte critique du smartphone Blackview R7
Marcus Herbrich, 2016-10- 1 (Update: 2016-10-28)
Andreas Osthoff
Editor of the original article: Andreas Osthoff - Managing Editor Business Notebooks