Notebookcheck

Courte critique du smartphone Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus (2018)

Manuel Masiero, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, Felicitas Krohn (traduit par Prévots), 12/22/2018

Bonne affaire de 6 pouces. Si vous êtes à la recherche d’un smartphone bon marché équipé d’un grand écran, d’une double SIM et de la LTE, alors ne cherchez pas plus loin. Le Galaxy J4 Plus (2018) est élégant, possède de bonnes performances, et s’avère très proche du Galaxy J6 Plus au tarif plus élevé.

Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018 (Galaxy J Gamme)
Processeur
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917)
Carte graphique
Qualcomm Adreno 308
Mémoire
2048 Mo 
Écran
6 pouces 18.5:9, 1480 x 720 pixel 274 PPP, capacitif, 16 millions de couleurs, IPS, brillant: oui
Disque dur
32 GB eMMC Flash, 32 Go 
, 24.2 Go libres
Connexions
1 USB 2.0, Connectique audio: jack 3,5 mm, Lecteur de cartes mémoires: micro SD jusqu'à 512 Go, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Capteurs: accéléromètre, capteur de proximité, USB OTG, Samsung Smart Switch, Wi-Fi Direct
Réseau
802.11 b/g/n (b/g/n), Bluetooth 4.2, GSM : 850, 900, 1 800, 1 900 MHz. UMTS : 850, 900, 1 900, 2 100 MHz. LTE Cat. 4 : bandes 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 38, 40, 41. Dual-Nano SIM : jusqu'à 150 Mbit/s en réception speeds. DAS : tête, 0,315 W/kg ; corps, 1,463 W/kg, Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Taille
Hauteur x Largeur x Profondeur (en mm): 7.9 x 161.4 x 76.9
Batterie
3300 mAh Lithium-Ion, Autonomie de la batterie en communication 3G (selon les données du fabricant): 23 h
Système d'exploitation
Android 8.1 Oreo
Appareil photo
Appareil photo primaire: 13 MPix f/1,9, 28 mm, flash LED, Autofocus, vidéos jusqu'à 1920x1080 à 30 FPS
Appareil photo secondaire: 5 MPix f/2,2, flash, vidéos jusqu'à 1920x1080 à 30 FPS
Fonctionnalités additionnelles
Haut-parleurs: mono, sur le côté droit de l'appareil, Clavier: virtuel, Google apps, Samsung apps, Microsoft apps, 24 Mois Garantie, fanless
Poids
178 g, Alimentation: 30 g
Prix
189 euros
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Comparaison des tailles

160.9 mm 75.3 mm 9.4 mm 197 g161.4 mm 76.9 mm 7.9 mm 178 g153.6 mm 77.6 mm 9.7 mm 174 g152.4 mm 73 mm 7.8 mm 150 g148.7 mm 75.3 mm 8.68 mm 162 g147.5 mm 71.5 mm 8.3 mm 146 g144.5 mm 71 mm 8.3 mm 150 g
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
BQ Aquaris C
Adreno 308, 425, 16 GB eMMC Flash
268 (min: 247, max: 276) MBit/s ∼100% +457%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=353)
218 MBit/s ∼81% +353%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762, 32 GB eMMC Flash
62.1 (min: 30, max: 62) MBit/s ∼23% +29%
Huawei Y6 2018
Adreno 308, 425, 16 GB eMMC Flash
50.5 MBit/s ∼19% +5%
Nokia 2.1
Adreno 308, 425, 8 GB eMMC Flash
48.7 (min: 29, max: 54) MBit/s ∼18% +1%
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
Adreno 308, 425, 32 GB eMMC Flash
48.1 (min: 23, max: 55) MBit/s ∼18%
LG K11
Mali-T860 MP2, MT6750, 16 GB eMMC Flash
46.1 MBit/s ∼17% -4%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
Adreno 308, 425, 32 GB eMMC Flash
43.2 (min: 36, max: 52) MBit/s ∼16% -10%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
BQ Aquaris C
Adreno 308, 425, 16 GB eMMC Flash
216 (min: 189, max: 218) MBit/s ∼100% +468%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=353)
210 MBit/s ∼97% +453%
LG K11
Mali-T860 MP2, MT6750, 16 GB eMMC Flash
58.6 MBit/s ∼27% +54%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762, 32 GB eMMC Flash
55.5 (min: 47, max: 59) MBit/s ∼26% +46%
Nokia 2.1
Adreno 308, 425, 8 GB eMMC Flash
52.7 (min: 27, max: 58) MBit/s ∼24% +39%
Huawei Y6 2018
Adreno 308, 425, 16 GB eMMC Flash
52.2 MBit/s ∼24% +37%
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
Adreno 308, 425, 32 GB eMMC Flash
38 (min: 19, max: 52) MBit/s ∼18%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
Adreno 308, 425, 32 GB eMMC Flash
35.4 (min: 23, max: 51) MBit/s ∼16% -7%
0102030405060Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø47.6 (23-55)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø39.2 (19-52)
GPS Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus (2018) : vue générale.
GPS Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus (2018) : vue générale.
GPS Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus (2018) : autour d'un lac.
GPS Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus (2018) : autour d'un lac.
GPS Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus (2018) : boucle.
GPS Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus (2018) : boucle.
GPS Garmin Edge 500 : vue générale.
GPS Garmin Edge 500 : vue générale.
GPS Garmin Edge 500 : autour d'un lac.
GPS Garmin Edge 500 : autour d'un lac.
GPS Garmin Edge 500 : boucle.
GPS Garmin Edge 500 : boucle.

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
536
cd/m²
548
cd/m²
554
cd/m²
533
cd/m²
558
cd/m²
575
cd/m²
515
cd/m²
544
cd/m²
577
cd/m²
Homogénéité de la luminosité
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 577 cd/m² Moyenne: 548.9 cd/m² Minimum: 4.6 cd/m²
Homogénéité de la luminosité: 89 %
Valeur mesurée au centre, sur batterie: 558 cd/m²
Contraste: 979:1 (Valeurs des noirs: 0.57 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 7 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.2
ΔE Greyscale 9.4 | 0.64-98 Ø6.4
92.2% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.15
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
IPS, 1480x720, 6
BQ Aquaris C
IPS, 1440x720, 5.45
Huawei Y6 2018
IPS, 1440x720, 5.7
LG K11
IPS, 1280x720, 5.3
Nokia 2.1
IPS, 1280x720, 5.5
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
IPS, 1440x720, 6
Xiaomi Redmi 6
IPS, 1440x720, 5.45
Screen
19%
12%
-21%
10%
1%
6%
Brightness middle
558
623
12%
483
-13%
394
-29%
338
-39%
518
-7%
373
-33%
Brightness
549
608
11%
460
-16%
385
-30%
327
-40%
481
-12%
361
-34%
Brightness Distribution
89
91
2%
88
-1%
93
4%
82
-8%
87
-2%
94
6%
Black Level *
0.57
0.61
-7%
0.4
30%
0.66
-16%
0.27
53%
0.85
-49%
0.53
7%
Contrast
979
1021
4%
1208
23%
597
-39%
1252
28%
609
-38%
704
-28%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
7
4.5
36%
5.8
17%
8.2
-17%
5.36
23%
4.47
36%
4.22
40%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
13.3
7.33
45%
12.6
5%
21.5
-62%
9.77
27%
8.04
40%
10.14
24%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
9.4
4.8
49%
5
47%
7.5
20%
6.2
34%
5.4
43%
3.3
65%
Gamma
2.15 102%
2.596 85%
2.6 85%
2.6 85%
2.345 94%
2.318 95%
2.321 95%
CCT
9626 68%
7557 86%
7709 84%
7581 86%
8460 77%
7134 91%
6862 95%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 calibrated *
4.42

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

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, 52 % des appareils testés n'emploient pas MDI pour assombrir leur écran. Nous avons relevé une moyenne à 9821 (minimum : 43 - maximum : 142900) Hz dans le cas où une MDI était active.

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
25.6 ms ... hausse ↗ et chute ↘ combinées↗ 7.6 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. » 44 % des appareils testés affichent de meilleures performances.
Cela signifie que les latences relevées sont similaires à la moyenne (25.5 ms) de tous les appareils testés.
       Temps de réponse gris 50% à gris 80%
51.2 ms ... hausse ↗ et chute ↘ combinées↗ 22.8 ms hausse
↘ 28.4 ms chute
L'écran souffre de latences très élevées, à éviter pour le jeu.
En comparaison, tous les appareils testés affichent entre 0.9 (minimum) et 636 (maximum) ms. » 85 % des appareils testés affichent de meilleures performances.
Cela signifie que les latences relevées sont moins bonnes que la moyenne (40.7 ms) de tous les appareils testés.
Geekbench 4.3
Compute RenderScript Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
1413 Points ∼30%
BQ Aquaris C
1218 Points ∼26% -14%
Huawei Y6 2018
1419 Points ∼31% 0%
LG K11
1559 Points ∼34% +10%
Nokia 2.1
1405 Points ∼30% -1%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
1380 Points ∼30% -2%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
2799 Points ∼60% +98%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (1113 - 1460, n=15)
1352 Points ∼29% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (1077 - 21070, n=241)
4641 Points ∼100% +228%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
1816 Points ∼41%
BQ Aquaris C
1769 Points ∼40% -3%
Huawei Y6 2018
1939 Points ∼44% +7%
LG K11
2259 Points ∼51% +24%
Nokia 2.1
1602 Points ∼36% -12%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
883 Points ∼20% -51%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
3660 Points ∼82% +102%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (883 - 1939, n=17)
1752 Points ∼39% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (1634 - 11598, n=293)
4448 Points ∼100% +145%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
652 Points ∼50%
BQ Aquaris C
647 Points ∼50% -1%
Huawei Y6 2018
692 Points ∼53% +6%
LG K11
609 Points ∼47% -7%
Nokia 2.1
636 Points ∼49% -2%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
541 Points ∼41% -17%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
824 Points ∼63% +26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (541 - 692, n=17)
654 Points ∼50% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (590 - 4824, n=294)
1305 Points ∼100% +100%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
3214 Points ∼67%
BQ Aquaris C
3281 Points ∼68% +2%
Huawei Y6 2018
3629 Points ∼76% +13%
LG K11
3249 Points ∼68% +1%
Nokia 2.1
3146 Points ∼66% -2%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
2829 Points ∼59% -12%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
4801 Points ∼100% +49%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (2829 - 3629, n=17)
3268 Points ∼68% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (2828 - 9868, n=304)
4773 Points ∼99% +49%
Work performance score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
4009 Points ∼65%
BQ Aquaris C
4058 Points ∼65% +1%
Huawei Y6 2018
4756 Points ∼77% +19%
LG K11
4241 Points ∼68% +6%
Nokia 2.1
Points ∼0% -100%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
3681 Points ∼59% -8%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
6200 Points ∼100% +55%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (4009 - 4813, n=17)
4080 Points ∼66% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (3977 - 13531, n=472)
5201 Points ∼84% +30%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
Points ∼0%
Huawei Y6 2018
Points ∼0%
LG K11
1121 Points ∼63%
Nokia 2.1
Points ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
955 Points ∼54%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (0 - 0, n=6)
0 Points ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (939 - 4439, n=319)
1771 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
Points ∼0%
Huawei Y6 2018
Points ∼0%
LG K11
248 Points ∼16%
Nokia 2.1
Points ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
376 Points ∼25%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (0 - 0, n=6)
0 Points ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (138 - 8206, n=319)
1521 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
Points ∼0%
Huawei Y6 2018
Points ∼0%
LG K11
300 Points ∼21%
Nokia 2.1
Points ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
435 Points ∼31%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (0 - 0, n=7)
0 Points ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (170 - 5913, n=322)
1415 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
887 Points ∼51%
BQ Aquaris C
861 Points ∼49% -3%
Huawei Y6 2018
902 Points ∼52% +2%
LG K11
1207 Points ∼69% +36%
Nokia 2.1
885 Points ∼51% 0%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
375 Points ∼22% -58%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
971 Points ∼56% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (375 - 911, n=16)
839 Points ∼48% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (375 - 4493, n=335)
1744 Points ∼100% +97%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
246 Points ∼12%
BQ Aquaris C
247 Points ∼12% 0%
Huawei Y6 2018
250 Points ∼12% +2%
LG K11
384 Points ∼18% +56%
Nokia 2.1
250 Points ∼12% +2%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
248 Points ∼12% +1%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
647 Points ∼31% +163%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (118 - 250, n=16)
240 Points ∼11% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (131 - 14951, n=335)
2096 Points ∼100% +752%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
293 Points ∼17%
BQ Aquaris C
294 Points ∼17% 0%
Huawei Y6 2018
298 Points ∼17% +2%
LG K11
453 Points ∼26% +55%
Nokia 2.1
297 Points ∼17% +1%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
268 Points ∼15% -9%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
699 Points ∼39% +139%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (145 - 298, n=16)
284 Points ∼16% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (159 - 7856, n=336)
1774 Points ∼100% +505%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
Points ∼0%
Huawei Y6 2018
Points ∼0%
LG K11
1233 Points ∼72%
Nokia 2.1
Points ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
1023 Points ∼60%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (0 - 0, n=6)
0 Points ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (918 - 4216, n=395)
1704 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
Points ∼0%
Huawei Y6 2018
Points ∼0%
LG K11
252 Points ∼20%
Nokia 2.1
Points ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
309 Points ∼25%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (0 - 0, n=7)
0 Points ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (150 - 6355, n=397)
1244 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
Points ∼0%
Huawei Y6 2018
Points ∼0%
LG K11
306 Points ∼26%
Nokia 2.1
Points ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
366 Points ∼31%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (0 - 0, n=8)
0 Points ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (184 - 5509, n=405)
1190 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
890 Points ∼56%
BQ Aquaris C
845 Points ∼53% -5%
Huawei Y6 2018
907 Points ∼57% +2%
LG K11
1127 Points ∼70% +27%
Nokia 2.1
892 Points ∼56% 0%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
851 Points ∼53% -4%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
1050 Points ∼66% +18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (622 - 907, n=17)
865 Points ∼54% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (512 - 4215, n=429)
1603 Points ∼100% +80%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
55 Points ∼3%
BQ Aquaris C
55 Points ∼3% 0%
Huawei Y6 2018
55 Points ∼3% 0%
LG K11
381 Points ∼23% +593%
Nokia 2.1
46 Points ∼3% -16%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
55 Points ∼3% 0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
523 Points ∼31% +851%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (31 - 199, n=17)
56.3 Points ∼3% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (43 - 9963, n=429)
1693 Points ∼100% +2978%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
69 Points ∼5%
BQ Aquaris C
69 Points ∼5% 0%
Huawei Y6 2018
70 Points ∼5% +1%
LG K11
447 Points ∼31% +548%
Nokia 2.1
58 Points ∼4% -16%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
69 Points ∼5% 0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
589 Points ∼41% +754%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (39 - 239, n=17)
70.5 Points ∼5% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (55 - 7166, n=437)
1448 Points ∼100% +1999%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
10151 Points ∼76%
BQ Aquaris C
10105 Points ∼76% 0%
Huawei Y6 2018
10344 Points ∼78% +2%
LG K11
10285 Points ∼77% +1%
Nokia 2.1
10427 Points ∼79% +3%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
3958 Points ∼30% -61%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
11048 Points ∼83% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (3958 - 10784, n=17)
9816 Points ∼74% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (3958 - 37475, n=588)
13273 Points ∼100% +31%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
5340 Points ∼28%
BQ Aquaris C
5434 Points ∼29% +2%
Huawei Y6 2018
5426 Points ∼29% +2%
LG K11
8177 Points ∼43% +53%
Nokia 2.1
5487 Points ∼29% +3%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
5480 Points ∼29% +3%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
9536 Points ∼50% +79%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (2546 - 5712, n=17)
5304 Points ∼28% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (1152 - 162695, n=588)
18995 Points ∼100% +256%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
5969 Points ∼38%
BQ Aquaris C
6056 Points ∼38% +1%
Huawei Y6 2018
6067 Points ∼38% +2%
LG K11
8567 Points ∼54% +44%
Nokia 2.1
6133 Points ∼39% +3%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
5049 Points ∼32% -15%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
9835 Points ∼62% +65%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (2951 - 6379, n=17)
5871 Points ∼37% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (2915 - 77599, n=589)
15910 Points ∼100% +167%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
7.6 fps ∼23%
BQ Aquaris C
7.6 fps ∼23% 0%
Huawei Y6 2018
7.7 fps ∼23% +1%
LG K11
13 fps ∼39% +71%
Nokia 2.1
7.6 fps ∼23% 0%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
7.7 fps ∼23% +1%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
19 fps ∼58% +150%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (3.4 - 7.8, n=17)
7.41 fps ∼22% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 251, n=612)
33 fps ∼100% +334%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
13 fps ∼50%
BQ Aquaris C
13 fps ∼50% 0%
Huawei Y6 2018
14 fps ∼54% +8%
LG K11
22 fps ∼85% +69%
Nokia 2.1
14 fps ∼54% +8%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
13 fps ∼50% 0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
26 fps ∼100% +100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (6.4 - 20, n=17)
13.4 fps ∼52% +3%
Average of class Smartphone (6.9 - 120, n=615)
26 fps ∼100% +100%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
2.8 fps ∼16%
BQ Aquaris C
2.8 fps ∼16% 0%
Huawei Y6 2018
2.8 fps ∼16% 0%
LG K11
5.3 fps ∼30% +89%
Nokia 2.1
2.7 fps ∼15% -4%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
2.8 fps ∼16% 0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
9.4 fps ∼53% +236%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (1.3 - 2.8, n=16)
2.69 fps ∼15% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 132, n=533)
17.8 fps ∼100% +536%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
5.5 fps ∼32%
BQ Aquaris C
5.6 fps ∼33% +2%
Huawei Y6 2018
5.9 fps ∼35% +7%
LG K11
11 fps ∼65% +100%
Nokia 2.1
6.1 fps ∼36% +11%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
5.6 fps ∼33% +2%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
17 fps ∼100% +209%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (3.7 - 11, n=17)
5.94 fps ∼35% +8%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 115, n=537)
16.8 fps ∼99% +205%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
fps ∼0%
Huawei Y6 2018
fps ∼0%
LG K11
3.5 fps ∼23%
Nokia 2.1
fps ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
4.6 fps ∼30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (0 - 0, n=6)
0 fps ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (2.6 - 88, n=394)
15.1 fps ∼100%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
fps ∼0%
Huawei Y6 2018
fps ∼0%
LG K11
8.6 fps ∼59%
Nokia 2.1
fps ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
11 fps ∼76%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (0 - 0, n=6)
0 fps ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (3.5 - 110, n=397)
14.5 fps ∼100%
GFXBench
High Tier Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Nokia 2.1
fps ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
4.3 fps ∼46%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917)
0 fps ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (0.61 - 59, n=98)
9.3 fps ∼100%
2560x1440 High Tier Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Nokia 2.1
fps ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
1.4 fps ∼22%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917)
0 fps ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (0.21 - 31, n=98)
6.47 fps ∼100%
Normal Tier Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Nokia 2.1
fps ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
6.8 fps ∼49%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917)
0 fps ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (1.4 - 59, n=98)
14 fps ∼100%
1920x1080 Normal Tier Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Nokia 2.1
fps ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
3.5 fps ∼23%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917)
0 fps ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (0.77 - 63, n=97)
15.4 fps ∼100%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
fps ∼0%
Huawei Y6 2018
fps ∼0%
LG K11
1.9 fps ∼19%
Nokia 2.1
fps ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
2.1 fps ∼21%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (0 - 0, n=6)
0 fps ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (9 - 54, n=324)
10.2 fps ∼100%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
fps ∼0%
Huawei Y6 2018
fps ∼0%
LG K11
4.3 fps ∼46%
Nokia 2.1
fps ∼0%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
4.8 fps ∼52%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (0 - 0, n=6)
0 fps ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (9.4 - 58, n=327)
9.26 fps ∼100%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
42138 Points ∼34%
BQ Aquaris C
43307 Points ∼35% +3%
Huawei Y6 2018
46710 Points ∼38% +11%
LG K11
Points ∼0% -100%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
46450 Points ∼37% +10%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
75706 Points ∼61% +80%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (41483 - 46710, n=11)
39072 Points ∼32% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (41483 - 374820, n=217)
123946 Points ∼100% +194%
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
37022 Points ∼46%
BQ Aquaris C
36719 Points ∼45% -1%
Huawei Y6 2018
39089 Points ∼48% +6%
LG K11
39898 Points ∼49% +8%
Nokia 2.1
37484 Points ∼46% +1%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
39106 Points ∼48% +6%
Xiaomi Redmi 6
57169 Points ∼71% +54%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (29054 - 39106, n=17)
36278 Points ∼45% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (23275 - 273655, n=433)
80703 Points ∼100% +118%
BaseMark OS II
Web (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
636 Points ∼89%
BQ Aquaris C
10 Points ∼1% -98%
Huawei Y6 2018
616 Points ∼86% -3%
LG K11
679 Points ∼95% +7%
Nokia 2.1
649 Points ∼91% +2%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
664 Points ∼93% +4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (10 - 802, n=17)
611 Points ∼85% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1731, n=545)
717 Points ∼100% +13%
Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
430 Points ∼23%
BQ Aquaris C
434 Points ∼24% +1%
Huawei Y6 2018
443 Points ∼24% +3%
LG K11
487 Points ∼27% +13%
Nokia 2.1
428 Points ∼23% 0%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
433 Points ∼24% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (418 - 447, n=17)
437 Points ∼24% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 15969, n=545)
1831 Points ∼100% +326%
Memory (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
647 Points ∼48%
BQ Aquaris C
457 Points ∼34% -29%
Huawei Y6 2018
1069 Points ∼80% +65%
LG K11
728 Points ∼54% +13%
Nokia 2.1
502 Points ∼37% -22%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
794 Points ∼59% +23%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (363 - 1372, n=17)
678 Points ∼51% +5%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 6283, n=545)
1339 Points ∼100% +107%
System (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
1220 Points ∼45%
BQ Aquaris C
1187 Points ∼44% -3%
Huawei Y6 2018
1043 Points ∼39% -15%
LG K11
1599 Points ∼60% +31%
Nokia 2.1
1228 Points ∼46% +1%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
1245 Points ∼46% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (1043 - 1477, n=17)
1274 Points ∼47% +4%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 12202, n=545)
2684 Points ∼100% +120%
Overall (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
682 Points ∼51%
BQ Aquaris C
219 Points ∼16% -68%
Huawei Y6 2018
743 Points ∼56% +9%
LG K11
787 Points ∼59% +15%
Nokia 2.1
643 Points ∼48% -6%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
730 Points ∼55% +7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (207 - 891, n=17)
642 Points ∼48% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (150 - 6097, n=549)
1332 Points ∼100% +95%

Légende

 
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018 Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Qualcomm Adreno 308, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
BQ Aquaris C Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Qualcomm Adreno 308, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Huawei Y6 2018 Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Qualcomm Adreno 308, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
LG K11 Mediatek MT6750, ARM Mali-T860 MP2, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Nokia 2.1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Qualcomm Adreno 308, 8 GB eMMC Flash
 
Motorola Moto E5 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Qualcomm Adreno 308, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
Xiaomi Redmi 6 Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 32 GB eMMC Flash
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (0 - 273, n=470)
37.8 Points ∼100% +109%
Xiaomi Redmi 6 (Chrome 70)
22.736 Points ∼60% +26%
Huawei Y6 2018 (Chrome 66)
18.55 Points ∼49% +3%
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018 (Chrome 71.0.3578.98)
18.055 Points ∼48%
BQ Aquaris C (Chrome 70)
17.914 Points ∼47% -1%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus (Chrome 70)
17.765 Points ∼47% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (15.5 - 18.7, n=16)
17.5 Points ∼46% -3%
LG K11 (Chrome 67)
16.634 Points ∼44% -8%
Nokia 2.1 (Chrome 70)
15.853 Points ∼42% -12%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 43280, n=606)
5871 Points ∼100% +89%
Xiaomi Redmi 6 (Chrome 70)
4257 Points ∼73% +37%
LG K11 (Chrome 67)
3397 Points ∼58% +9%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus (Chrome 70)
3250 Points ∼55% +4%
BQ Aquaris C (Chrome 70)
3160 Points ∼54% +1%
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018 (Chrome 71.0.3578.98)
3114 Points ∼53%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (2411 - 3374, n=17)
2952 Points ∼50% -5%
Huawei Y6 2018 (Chrome 66)
2582 Points ∼44% -17%
Nokia 2.1 (Chrome 70)
2503 Points ∼43% -20%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Huawei Y6 2018 (Chrome 66)
16192.4 ms * ∼100% -25%
LG K11 (Chrome 67)
14149.5 ms * ∼87% -9%
Nokia 2.1 (Chrome 70)
13821 ms * ∼85% -7%
BQ Aquaris C (Chrome 70)
13253 ms * ∼82% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (10742 - 16192, n=17)
13125 ms * ∼81% -1%
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018 (Chrome 71.0.3578.98)
12935.3 ms * ∼80%
Motorola Moto E5 Plus (Chrome 70)
12723 ms * ∼79% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (603 - 59466, n=625)
11133 ms * ∼69% +14%
Xiaomi Redmi 6 (Chrome 70)
10846 ms * ∼67% +16%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Average of class Smartphone (24 - 161, n=85)
64.8 Points ∼100% +149%
Xiaomi Redmi 6 (Chrome 70)
29 Points ∼45% +12%
Huawei Y6 2018 (Chrome 66)
28 Points ∼43% +8%
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018 (Chrome 71.0.3578.98)
26 Points ∼40%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (24 - 28, n=5)
26 Points ∼40% 0%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
Average of class Smartphone (0 - 362, n=309)
117 Points ∼100% +52%
Xiaomi Redmi 6 (Chrome 70)
91 Points ∼78% +18%
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018 (Chrome 71.0.3578.98)
77 Points ∼66%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917) (62 - 79, n=8)
71.3 Points ∼61% -7%
Huawei Y6 2018 (Chrome 66)
71 Points ∼61% -8%

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

Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018BQ Aquaris CHuawei Y6 2018LG K11Nokia 2.1Motorola Moto E5 PlusXiaomi Redmi 6Average 32 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-17%
-14%
-11%
-7%
63%
35%
-7%
-8%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
62.35 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
59.18 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-5%
64 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
3%
61.11 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-2%
61.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-1%
60.68 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-3%
64.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
3%
48.2 (3.4 - 87.1, n=121)
-23%
47.2 (19.2 - 87.1, n=359)
-24%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
76.65 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
83.02 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
8%
84.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
11%
82.81 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
8%
79.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
4%
83.87 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
9%
82.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
8%
67 (8.2 - 96.5, n=121)
-13%
65.4 (29.8 - 96.5, n=359)
-15%
Random Write 4KB
13.33
9.8
-26%
9
-32%
13.16
-1%
13.45
1%
56.14
321%
36.3
172%
19 (0.75 - 77.3, n=161)
43%
18.3 (0.14 - 250, n=654)
37%
Random Read 4KB
48.42
39.1
-19%
38.8
-20%
45.8
-5%
50.46
4%
62.71
30%
52.5
8%
37.2 (3.59 - 117, n=161)
-23%
41.5 (1.59 - 173, n=654)
-14%
Sequential Write 256KB
99.58
45.7
-54%
65.6
-34%
48.32
-51%
51.18
-49%
137.89
38%
118.4
19%
94.8 (14.8 - 189, n=161)
-5%
86.5 (2.99 - 388, n=654)
-13%
Sequential Read 256KB
292.15
275.9
-6%
254.3
-13%
252.96
-13%
288.26
-1%
248.49
-15%
287
-2%
231 (25.8 - 452, n=161)
-21%
242 (12.1 - 912, n=654)
-17%
Dead Trigger 2
010203040Tooltip
; 1.5.2: Ø29.9 (9-31)
Shadow Fight 3
010203040Tooltip
; 1.15.0: Ø27.4 (1-38)
 29 °C28.7 °C31.9 °C 
 30 °C30.8 °C31.5 °C 
 29.6 °C31 °C31.3 °C 
Maximum: 31.9 °C
Moyenne: 30.4 °C
28.8 °C29.5 °C29.6 °C
29.1 °C30.4 °C29.6 °C
29 °C30.6 °C32.2 °C
Maximum: 32.2 °C
Moyenne: 29.9 °C
Alimentation (valeur maximale)  31.2 °C | Température ambiante de la pièce 22 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 30.4 °C / 87 F, compared to the average of 33.1 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 31.9 °C / 89 F, compared to the average of 35.6 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 32.2 °C / 90 F, compared to the average of 34.1 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.1 °C / 79 F, compared to the device average of 33.1 °C / 92 F.
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2032.835.12524.324.43118.6264024.3265033.837.26321.222.98024.822.110018.51812516.416.816017.126.620017.933.325016.842.431514.949.540015.153.750014.259.863013.964.180014.868100014.269.6125014.773.6160014.473200014.367.825001470.1315013.876400014.877.4500014.471.463001568.2800014.771.81000014.865.31250014.856.91600014.747.6SPL26.784.2N0.855.9median 14.8median 65.3Delta0.613.135.536.334.936.539.538.238.639.53945.32833.829.728.628.526.624.72823.734.522.546.52150.620.857.219.965.520.1671966.418.570.119.270.41975.918.176.31875.117.477.117.677.817.879.11881.51876.11874.61875.918731858.673.164.469.464.130.688.531.416.525.917.21.573.6median 18.5median 70.4210.9hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseSamsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018BQ Aquaris C
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 34.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.5% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.2% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (8.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (27.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 69% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 23% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 80% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 15% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

BQ Aquaris C audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 29.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.6% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 33% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 57% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 59% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 34% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Consommation énergétique
Éteint/en veilledarklight 0.01 / 0.16 Watts
Au reposdarkmidlight 0.68 / 1.78 / 1.82 Watts
Fortement sollicité midlight 4.44 / 6.13 Watts
 color bar
Légende: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
3300 mAh
BQ Aquaris C
3000 mAh
Huawei Y6 2018
3000 mAh
LG K11
3000 mAh
Nokia 2.1
4000 mAh
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
5000 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi 6
3000 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917)
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-5%
-59%
9%
15%
4%
17%
-23%
-4%
Idle Minimum *
0.68
0.7
-3%
1.7
-150%
0.57
16%
0.7
-3%
0.9
-32%
0.6
12%
1.113 (0.54 - 4.02, n=17)
-64%
0.88 (0.2 - 3.4, n=686)
-29%
Idle Average *
1.78
1.9
-7%
2.5
-40%
1.48
17%
1.2
33%
1.5
16%
1.3
27%
2.19 (1.2 - 6, n=17)
-23%
1.73 (0.6 - 6.2, n=685)
3%
Idle Maximum *
1.82
2.5
-37%
3.2
-76%
1.54
15%
1.9
-4%
2
-10%
2.1
-15%
2.55 (1.62 - 6.64, n=17)
-40%
2.01 (0.74 - 6.6, n=686)
-10%
Load Average *
4.44
4.1
8%
5.2
-17%
4.56
-3%
3.2
28%
3.2
28%
3
32%
4.32 (2.9 - 9.6, n=17)
3%
4.06 (0.8 - 10.8, n=680)
9%
Load Maximum *
6.13
5.2
15%
6.8
-11%
6.16
-0%
4.8
22%
4.9
20%
4.4
28%
5.5 (4.3 - 7.34, n=17)
10%
5.83 (1.2 - 14.2, n=680)
5%

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

Autonomie
Au repos (module WiFi éteint, luminosité au minimum)
28h 50min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
11h 47min
En lecture de Big Buck Bunny encodé en H.264 1080p
13h 58min
Fortement sollicité (luminosité au maximum)
6h 38min
Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018
3300 mAh
BQ Aquaris C
3000 mAh
Huawei Y6 2018
3000 mAh
LG K11
3000 mAh
Nokia 2.1
4000 mAh
Motorola Moto E5 Plus
5000 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi 6
3000 mAh
Autonomie de la batterie
-18%
-20%
5%
14%
52%
-18%
Reader / Idle
1730
1329
-23%
1425
-18%
H.264
838
702
-16%
752
-10%
WiFi v1.3
707
583
-18%
643
-9%
741
5%
809
14%
1078
52%
695
-2%
Load
398
279
-30%
238
-40%

Points positifs

+ écran 6 pouces
+ double SIM
+ LTE et NFC
+ GPS précis
+ Android 8.1 Oreo
+ appareil photo arrière 13 MP
+ déverrouillage facial
+ écran IPS lumineux
+ autonomie

Points négatifs

- USB 2.0
- pas de capteur d'empreintes
- Wifi
- performances dans les jeux
- pas de charge rapide
En test : le Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus (2018). Modèle de test aimablement fourni par notebooksbilliger.de.
En test : le Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus (2018). Modèle de test aimablement fourni par notebooksbilliger.de.

Le Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus (2018) est un smartphone bon marché impressionnant. Son écran de 6 pouces et son design élégant le font paraître plus cher qu’il ne l'est, tandis que sa fonctionnalité double SIM, son écran lumineux, sa grosse autonomie, et l’OS Android 8.1 Oreo impressionnent pour un appareil aussi peu cher.

Le Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus (2018) est un excellent smartphone d’entrée de gamme, avec un excellent rapport qualité / prix.

Le vieux SoC Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 est toujours étonnamment bon en 2018, mais il ne peut prendre en charge des jeux complexes comme Asphalt 9: Legends. Mais la liste des défauts de l’appareil est pour le reste réduite : nous aurions apprécié avoir un lecteur d’empreintes digitales et un port USB C - mais Samsung réserve cela aux smartphones plus chers. Il n’y a pas non plus de charge rapide, et l’appareil ne peut se connecter qu’au réseau 2,4 GHz. Le Wifi s’est également avéré lent.

Au final, le Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus (2018) fera l’affaire pour ceux qui cherchent un smartphone bon marché avec un grand écran. L’appareil ne fait pas grise mine à côté des séries plus chères Galaxy A et S, ce qui souligne la bonne tenue du Galaxy J4 Plus (2018).

L’intégralité de cette critique est disponible en anglais en suivant ce lien.

Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus 2018 - 12/20/2018 v6
Manuel Masiero

Châssis
81%
Clavier
67 / 75 → 89%
Dispositif de pointage
82%
Connectivité
38 / 60 → 63%
Poids
90%
Autonomie
95%
Écran
82%
Performances en jeu
7 / 63 → 10%
Performances dans les applications
38 / 70 → 54%
Chauffe
94%
Nuisance sonore
100%
Audio
65 / 91 → 71%
Appareil photo
66%
Moyenne
70%
79%
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 Samsung Galaxy J4 Plus (2018)
Manuel Masiero, 2018-12-22 (Update: 2018-12-22)