Notebookcheck

Courte critique du smartphone Xiaomi Mi Mix 3

Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Daniel Schmidt (traduit par Prévots), 12/02/2018

De l'ancien vers le nouveau. Le Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 possède des technologies éprouvées, mais également un système coulissant et un design presque sans bordures, et surtout sans encoche. Mais le dernier-né de la série Mi Mix réserve une autre surprise.

Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 (Mi Gamme)
Carte graphique
Mémoire
8192 Mo 
Écran
6.39 pouces 19.5:9, 2340 x 1080 pixel 403 PPP, capacitif, AMOLED, Super AMOLED, brillant: oui
Disque dur
128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 128 Go 
, 110.3 Go libres
Connexions
1 USB 2.0, Connectique audio: USB C, 1 Lecteur d'empreintes digitales, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Capteurs: boussole, gyroscope, capteur de proximité, accéléromètre, OTG, LED de status, VoLTE, appels WiFi, Miracast
Réseau
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM 1 800 / 1 900 / 850 / 900MHz ; UMTS 1 900 / 2 100 / 850 / 900MHz ; FD-LTE 2 100 (bandes 1) / 1 800 (bandes 3) / 2 600 (bandes 7) / 900(bandes 8) / 1 900(bandes 2) / 1 700(bandes 4) / 850(bandes 5) / 700(bandes 17) / 800(bandes 20) ; TD-LTE 2 600(bande, Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Taille
Hauteur x Largeur x Profondeur (en mm): 8.8 x 157.8 x 74.6
Batterie
3200 mAh Lithium-Polymère
Système d'exploitation
Android 9.0 Pie
Appareil photo
Appareil photo primaire: 12 MPix double capteur : 12MP + 12Mp ; capteur Exmor-RS CMOS ; f/1,8 ; 3840 x 2160 à 30 FPS, 1920 x 1080 à 60 FPS, 1280 x 720 à 120 FPS
Appareil photo secondaire: 24 MPix double capteur : 24MP + 2MP
Fonctionnalités additionnelles
Haut-parleurs: mono, Clavier: virtuel, chargeur pad Qi, adaptateur secteur CN modulaire, adaptateur USB C vers jack 3,5 mm, coque, câble micro USB, MIUI, 12 Mois Garantie, fanless
Poids
218 g, Alimentation: 68 g
Prix
470 euros
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3

Comparaison des tailles

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
685 (min: 657, max: 705) MBit/s ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
652 MBit/s ∼95% -5%
OnePlus 6T
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
629 (min: 621, max: 638) MBit/s ∼92% -8%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
615 MBit/s ∼90% -10%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
615 (min: 532, max: 642) MBit/s ∼90% -10%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
491 (min: 100, max: 534) MBit/s ∼72% -28%
HTC U12 Plus
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
579 MBit/s ∼85% -15%
Oppo Find X
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
530 (min: 467, max: 568) MBit/s ∼77% -23%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Adreno 630, 845, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
523 MBit/s ∼76% -24%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=302)
210 MBit/s ∼31% -69%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
696 (min: 647, max: 714) MBit/s ∼100% +5%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
663 (min: 289, max: 805) MBit/s ∼95% 0%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
663 (min: 507, max: 704) MBit/s ∼95%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
615 MBit/s ∼88% -7%
HTC U12 Plus
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
573 MBit/s ∼82% -14%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Adreno 630, 845, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
524 MBit/s ∼75% -21%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
519 MBit/s ∼75% -22%
OnePlus 6T
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
474 (min: 241, max: 497) MBit/s ∼68% -29%
Oppo Find X
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
450 (min: 167, max: 526) MBit/s ∼65% -32%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=302)
205 MBit/s ∼29% -69%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540550560570580590600610620630640650660670680690700710Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø684 (657-705)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø663 (507-704)
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
GPS Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
GPS Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
GPS Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
GPS Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
GPS Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 - Mode photo.
Mode photo.
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 - Double zoom.
Double zoom.
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 - Mode portrait.
Mode portrait.
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 - Mode portrait.
Mode portrait.
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 - Mode photo.
Mode photo.
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 - Mode nuit.
Mode nuit.
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 - Mode photo.
Mode photo.
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 - Double zoom.
Double zoom.
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3

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
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
587
cd/m²
586
cd/m²
576
cd/m²
599
cd/m²
599
cd/m²
595
cd/m²
595
cd/m²
599
cd/m²
599
cd/m²
Homogénéité de la luminosité
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 599 cd/m² Moyenne: 592.8 cd/m² Minimum: 2.12 cd/m²
Homogénéité de la luminosité: 96 %
Valeur mesurée au centre, sur batterie: 599 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Valeurs des noirs: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.4 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.2
ΔE Greyscale 2 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
97.5% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.25
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
OLED, 2340x1080, 6.39
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
Super AMOLED, 2248x1080, 6.2
Oppo Find X
AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.42
Vivo Nex Ultimate
Super AMOLED, 2316x1080, 6.59
OnePlus 6T
Optic AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.41
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.2
HTC U12 Plus
Super LCD 6, 2880x1440, 6
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
OLED, 3120x1440, 6.3
Screen
-56%
-97%
-161%
-25%
-20%
-8%
1%
Brightness middle
599
429
-28%
427
-29%
356
-41%
437
-27%
565
-6%
395
-34%
576
-4%
Brightness
593
432
-27%
432
-27%
352
-41%
442
-25%
571
-4%
402
-32%
582
-2%
Brightness Distribution
96
88
-8%
87
-9%
95
-1%
95
-1%
96
0%
90
-6%
90
-6%
Black Level *
0.37
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
1.4
3.39
-142%
5.37
-284%
7.08
-406%
2.21
-58%
2.3
-64%
1.6
-14%
1.3
7%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
3.2
5.25
-64%
7.51
-135%
14.1
-341%
4.27
-33%
4.8
-50%
3.4
-6%
3.5
-9%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
2
3.3
-65%
4
-100%
4.7
-135%
2.1
-5%
1.9
5%
1.1
45%
1.6
20%
Gamma
2.25 98%
2.238 98%
2.243 98%
2.096 105%
2.307 95%
2.16 102%
2.14 103%
2.18 101%
CCT
6496 100%
7135 91%
6851 95%
7297 89%
6353 102%
6332 103%
6536 99%
6561 99%
Contrast
1068

* ... 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) décelé 240.4 Hz

Le rétroéclairage de l'écran scintille à la fréquence de 240.4 Hz (certainement du fait de l'utilisation d'une MDI - Modulation de largeur d'impulsion) .

La fréquence de rafraîchissement de 240.4 Hz est relativement faible, les personnes les plus sensibles devraient percevoir un scintillement et être sujettes à une fatigue oculaire accrue (avec le niveau de luminosité indiqué)

En comparaison, 52 % des appareils testés n'emploient pas MDI pour assombrir leur écran. Nous avons relevé une moyenne à 8964 (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
12.2 ms ... hausse ↗ et chute ↘ combinées↗ 9.4 ms hausse
↘ 2.8 ms chute
L'écran montre de bons temps de réponse, mais insuffisant pour du jeu compétitif.
En comparaison, tous les appareils testés affichent entre 0.8 (minimum) et 240 (maximum) ms. » 10 % des appareils testés affichent de meilleures performances.
Cela signifie que les latences relevées sont meilleures que la moyenne (25.6 ms) de tous les appareils testés.
       Temps de réponse gris 50% à gris 80%
7.6 ms ... hausse ↗ et chute ↘ combinées↗ 2.8 ms hausse
↘ 4.8 ms chute
L'écran montre de très faibles temps de réponse, parfait pour le jeu.
En comparaison, tous les appareils testés affichent entre 0.9 (minimum) et 636 (maximum) ms. » 3 % des appareils testés affichent de meilleures performances.
Cela signifie que les latences relevées sont meilleures que la moyenne (41 ms) de tous les appareils testés.
Geekbench 4.1/4.2
Compute RenderScript Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
13374 Points ∼94%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
14299 Points ∼100% +7%
Oppo Find X
13817 Points ∼97% +3%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
13666 Points ∼96% +2%
OnePlus 6T
13341 Points ∼93% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
6202 Points ∼43% -54%
HTC U12 Plus
12493 Points ∼87% -7%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
8938 Points ∼63% -33%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (10876 - 14489, n=19)
13635 Points ∼95% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (836 - 21070, n=196)
4525 Points ∼32% -66%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
8634 Points ∼86%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
8548 Points ∼85% -1%
Oppo Find X
7983 Points ∼80% -8%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
9136 Points ∼91% +6%
OnePlus 6T
8995 Points ∼90% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
8963 Points ∼89% +4%
HTC U12 Plus
8812 Points ∼88% +2%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
10024 Points ∼100% +16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7754 - 9231, n=21)
8655 Points ∼86% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (883 - 11598, n=246)
4306 Points ∼43% -50%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
2333 Points ∼62%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
2441 Points ∼65% +5%
Oppo Find X
2330 Points ∼62% 0%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
2464 Points ∼65% +6%
OnePlus 6T
2384 Points ∼63% +2%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3776 Points ∼100% +62%
HTC U12 Plus
2429 Points ∼64% +4%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
3378 Points ∼89% +45%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2272 - 2500, n=21)
2417 Points ∼64% +4%
Average of class Smartphone (394 - 4824, n=247)
1269 Points ∼34% -46%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
8326 Points ∼84%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
7360 Points ∼75% -12%
Oppo Find X
9868 Points ∼100% +19%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
7580 Points ∼77% -9%
OnePlus 6T
8487 Points ∼86% +2%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
5319 Points ∼54% -36%
HTC U12 Plus
8601 Points ∼87% +3%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
9225 Points ∼93% +11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (8326 - 9868, n=22)
8018 Points ∼81% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (3146 - 9868, n=254)
4550 Points ∼46% -45%
Work performance score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
10052 Points ∼76%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
8967 Points ∼68% -11%
Oppo Find X
13211 Points ∼100% +31%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
7998 Points ∼61% -20%
OnePlus 6T
10590 Points ∼80% +5%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
5822 Points ∼44% -42%
HTC U12 Plus
10264 Points ∼78% +2%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
12535 Points ∼95% +25%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7998 - 13211, n=20)
10123 Points ∼77% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (6412 - 13531, n=422)
4954 Points ∼37% -51%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
2802 Points ∼64%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
2227 Points ∼51% -21%
Oppo Find X
3089 Points ∼71% +10%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
2577 Points ∼59% -8%
OnePlus 6T
3681 Points ∼84% +31%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2546 Points ∼58% -9%
HTC U12 Plus
2947 Points ∼68% +5%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4364 Points ∼100% +56%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2223 - 3764, n=22)
3110 Points ∼71% +11%
Average of class Smartphone (2386 - 4439, n=276)
1707 Points ∼39% -39%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
4480 Points ∼76%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
4209 Points ∼72% -6%
Oppo Find X
5678 Points ∼97% +27%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
5689 Points ∼97% +27%
OnePlus 6T
5877 Points ∼100% +31%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3792 Points ∼65% -15%
HTC U12 Plus
4450 Points ∼76% -1%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4250 Points ∼72% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4209 - 8206, n=22)
5494 Points ∼93% +23%
Average of class Smartphone (869 - 8206, n=276)
1467 Points ∼25% -67%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
3846 Points ∼74%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3512 Points ∼68% -9%
Oppo Find X
4765 Points ∼92% +24%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4485 Points ∼86% +17%
OnePlus 6T
5189 Points ∼100% +35%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3420 Points ∼66% -11%
HTC U12 Plus
3997 Points ∼77% +4%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4275 Points ∼82% +11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3512 - 5189, n=22)
4646 Points ∼90% +21%
Average of class Smartphone (1012 - 5189, n=279)
1361 Points ∼26% -65%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
3060 Points ∼69%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
2145 Points ∼49% -30%
Oppo Find X
3024 Points ∼69% -1%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
2110 Points ∼48% -31%
OnePlus 6T
3374 Points ∼77% +10%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2561 Points ∼58% -16%
HTC U12 Plus
2656 Points ∼60% -13%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4407 Points ∼100% +44%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2110 - 3763, n=21)
3081 Points ∼70% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (375 - 4493, n=291)
1687 Points ∼38% -45%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
8245 Points ∼98%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
5922 Points ∼71% -28%
Oppo Find X
8357 Points ∼100% +1%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
7823 Points ∼93% -5%
OnePlus 6T
8397 Points ∼100% +2%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
4797 Points ∼57% -42%
HTC U12 Plus
6419 Points ∼76% -22%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
5854 Points ∼70% -29%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5228 - 8451, n=21)
7720 Points ∼92% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (131 - 14951, n=291)
2071 Points ∼25% -75%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
6054 Points ∼96%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
4232 Points ∼67% -30%
Oppo Find X
6005 Points ∼95% -1%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4884 Points ∼77% -19%
OnePlus 6T
6310 Points ∼100% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
4018 Points ∼64% -34%
HTC U12 Plus
4882 Points ∼77% -19%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
5456 Points ∼86% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4054 - 6568, n=21)
5771 Points ∼91% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (159 - 7856, n=292)
1734 Points ∼27% -71%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
2653 Points ∼63%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
2118 Points ∼51% -20%
Oppo Find X
3132 Points ∼75% +18%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
3271 Points ∼78% +23%
OnePlus 6T
3537 Points ∼85% +33%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2469 Points ∼59% -7%
HTC U12 Plus
3197 Points ∼76% +21%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4183 Points ∼100% +58%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2118 - 3703, n=21)
3268 Points ∼78% +23%
Average of class Smartphone (2281 - 4216, n=351)
1640 Points ∼39% -38%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
4223 Points ∼81%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3742 Points ∼71% -11%
Oppo Find X
5169 Points ∼99% +22%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
5171 Points ∼99% +22%
OnePlus 6T
5241 Points ∼100% +24%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3582 Points ∼68% -15%
HTC U12 Plus
3488 Points ∼67% -17%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4206 Points ∼80% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3488 - 5241, n=21)
4944 Points ∼94% +17%
Average of class Smartphone (815 - 5241, n=351)
1187 Points ∼23% -72%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
3677 Points ∼78%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3197 Points ∼68% -13%
Oppo Find X
4516 Points ∼95% +23%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4580 Points ∼97% +25%
OnePlus 6T
4734 Points ∼100% +29%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3256 Points ∼69% -11%
HTC U12 Plus
3419 Points ∼72% -7%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4201 Points ∼89% +14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3197 - 4734, n=21)
4424 Points ∼93% +20%
Average of class Smartphone (951 - 4734, n=359)
1134 Points ∼24% -69%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
3221 Points ∼78%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
2176 Points ∼52% -32%
Oppo Find X
3197 Points ∼77% -1%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
2806 Points ∼68% -13%
OnePlus 6T
3483 Points ∼84% +8%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2496 Points ∼60% -23%
HTC U12 Plus
2774 Points ∼67% -14%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4150 Points ∼100% +29%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2159 - 3668, n=21)
3129 Points ∼75% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (532 - 4215, n=383)
1538 Points ∼37% -52%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
8236 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
6554 Points ∼79% -20%
Oppo Find X
8193 Points ∼99% -1%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
8203 Points ∼99% 0%
OnePlus 6T
8272 Points ∼100% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
4637 Points ∼56% -44%
HTC U12 Plus
5637 Points ∼68% -32%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
5305 Points ∼64% -36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5637 - 8312, n=21)
7818 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (46 - 8312, n=383)
1632 Points ∼20% -80%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
6118 Points ∼97%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
4529 Points ∼71% -26%
Oppo Find X
6087 Points ∼96% -1%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
5747 Points ∼91% -6%
OnePlus 6T
6336 Points ∼100% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3895 Points ∼61% -36%
HTC U12 Plus
4585 Points ∼72% -25%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4996 Points ∼79% -18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4529 - 6454, n=21)
5843 Points ∼92% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (58 - 6454, n=391)
1387 Points ∼22% -77%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
35987 Points ∼98%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
30765 Points ∼84% -15%
Oppo Find X
35009 Points ∼95% -3%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
34800 Points ∼95% -3%
OnePlus 6T
35022 Points ∼95% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
26226 Points ∼71% -27%
HTC U12 Plus
33810 Points ∼92% -6%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
36755 Points ∼100% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (15614 - 37475, n=21)
33400 Points ∼91% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (3958 - 37475, n=538)
12873 Points ∼35% -64%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
83976 Points ∼99%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
77003 Points ∼91% -8%
Oppo Find X
83168 Points ∼98% -1%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
80183 Points ∼94% -5%
OnePlus 6T
84998 Points ∼100% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
46610 Points ∼55% -44%
HTC U12 Plus
81726 Points ∼96% -3%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
67730 Points ∼80% -19%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (53794 - 84998, n=21)
80111 Points ∼94% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (2465 - 162695, n=538)
17989 Points ∼21% -79%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
64627 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
57711 Points ∼89% -11%
Oppo Find X
63695 Points ∼99% -1%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
62167 Points ∼96% -4%
OnePlus 6T
64534 Points ∼100% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
39745 Points ∼61% -39%
HTC U12 Plus
62152 Points ∼96% -4%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
57047 Points ∼88% -12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (34855 - 65330, n=21)
60990 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (2915 - 77599, n=539)
15106 Points ∼23% -77%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
152 fps ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
102 fps ∼67% -33%
Oppo Find X
146 fps ∼96% -4%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
151 fps ∼99% -1%
OnePlus 6T
152 fps ∼100% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
147 fps ∼97% -3%
HTC U12 Plus
98 fps ∼64% -36%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
120 fps ∼79% -21%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (98 - 152, n=22)
144 fps ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 251, n=563)
31.3 fps ∼21% -79%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
60 fps ∼96%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
58 fps ∼93% -3%
Oppo Find X
60 fps ∼96% 0%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
60 fps ∼96% 0%
OnePlus 6T
60 fps ∼96% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
60 fps ∼96% 0%
HTC U12 Plus
59 fps ∼94% -2%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
61 fps ∼97% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (58 - 89, n=21)
62.7 fps ∼100% +5%
Average of class Smartphone (6.9 - 120, n=566)
24.9 fps ∼40% -58%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
81 fps ∼98%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
54 fps ∼65% -33%
Oppo Find X
79 fps ∼95% -2%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
83 fps ∼100% +2%
OnePlus 6T
59 fps ∼71% -27%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
74 fps ∼89% -9%
HTC U12 Plus
72 fps ∼87% -11%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
73 fps ∼88% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (54 - 83, n=21)
73 fps ∼88% -10%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 132, n=485)
16.8 fps ∼20% -79%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
56 fps ∼95%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
51 fps ∼86% -9%
Oppo Find X
58 fps ∼98% +4%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
59 fps ∼100% +5%
OnePlus 6T
59 fps ∼100% +5%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
45 fps ∼76% -20%
HTC U12 Plus
35 fps ∼59% -37%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
42 fps ∼71% -25%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (35 - 75, n=21)
55 fps ∼93% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 115, n=488)
16 fps ∼27% -71%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
59 fps ∼98%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
32 fps ∼53% -46%
Oppo Find X
58 fps ∼97% -2%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
60 fps ∼100% +2%
OnePlus 6T
59 fps ∼98% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
47 fps ∼78% -20%
HTC U12 Plus
39 fps ∼65% -34%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
29 fps ∼48% -51%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (32 - 61, n=22)
54.4 fps ∼91% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 88, n=348)
14.4 fps ∼24% -76%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
50 fps ∼85%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
29 fps ∼49% -42%
Oppo Find X
59 fps ∼100% +18%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
55 fps ∼93% +10%
OnePlus 6T
53 fps ∼90% +6%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
24 fps ∼41% -52%
HTC U12 Plus
31 fps ∼53% -38%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
26 fps ∼44% -48%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (25 - 59, n=21)
46.5 fps ∼79% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (9.8 - 110, n=351)
13.9 fps ∼24% -72%
GFXBench
High Tier Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
20 fps ∼91%
OnePlus 6T
22 fps ∼100% +10%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
19 fps ∼86% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (13 - 25, n=10)
19.8 fps ∼90% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (3.6 - 59, n=61)
10.3 fps ∼47% -48%
2560x1440 High Tier Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
31 fps ∼100%
OnePlus 6T
14 fps ∼45% -55%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
13 fps ∼42% -58%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (11 - 31, n=10)
15.4 fps ∼50% -50%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 31, n=61)
6.56 fps ∼21% -79%
Normal Tier Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
20 fps ∼59%
OnePlus 6T
34 fps ∼100% +70%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
18 fps ∼53% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (20 - 40, n=10)
28.5 fps ∼84% +43%
Average of class Smartphone (5.7 - 59, n=61)
14.5 fps ∼43% -27%
1920x1080 Normal Tier Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
30 fps ∼81%
OnePlus 6T
37 fps ∼100% +23%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
33 fps ∼89% +10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (29 - 38, n=9)
35 fps ∼95% +17%
Average of class Smartphone (6 - 63, n=60)
15.9 fps ∼43% -47%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
35 fps ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
25 fps ∼71% -29%
Oppo Find X
35 fps ∼100% 0%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
35 fps ∼100% 0%
OnePlus 6T
35 fps ∼100% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
28 fps ∼80% -20%
HTC U12 Plus
35 fps ∼100% 0%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
31 fps ∼89% -11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (25 - 35, n=21)
34 fps ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (6.3 - 54, n=279)
9.88 fps ∼28% -72%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
30 fps ∼91%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
24 fps ∼73% -20%
Oppo Find X
29 fps ∼88% -3%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
33 fps ∼100% +10%
OnePlus 6T
31 fps ∼94% +3%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
14 fps ∼42% -53%
HTC U12 Plus
20 fps ∼61% -33%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
16 fps ∼48% -47%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (17 - 37, n=21)
28.3 fps ∼86% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (6 - 58, n=282)
8.89 fps ∼27% -70%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
292798 Points ∼97%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
288062 Points ∼96% -2%
Oppo Find X
283346 Points ∼94% -3%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
286241 Points ∼95% -2%
OnePlus 6T
294488 Points ∼98% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
250577 Points ∼83% -14%
HTC U12 Plus
255739 Points ∼85% -13%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
300617 Points ∼100% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (246366 - 299878, n=22)
275958 Points ∼92% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (17073 - 348178, n=169)
118333 Points ∼39% -60%
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
228173 Points ∼91%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
232931 Points ∼93% +2%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
229991 Points ∼92% +1%
OnePlus 6T
228939 Points ∼91% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
222290 Points ∼89% -3%
HTC U12 Plus
221971 Points ∼88% -3%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
250848 Points ∼100% +10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (162183 - 242953, n=18)
223967 Points ∼89% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (23275 - 254229, n=386)
76035 Points ∼30% -67%
BaseMark OS II
Web (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
1386 Points ∼96%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
1288 Points ∼90% -7%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
1009 Points ∼70% -27%
OnePlus 6T
1398 Points ∼97% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
1109 Points ∼77% -20%
HTC U12 Plus
1437 Points ∼100% +4%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
1424 Points ∼99% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (1009 - 1613, n=20)
1348 Points ∼94% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1731, n=498)
698 Points ∼49% -50%
Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
7891 Points ∼99%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
7965 Points ∼100% +1%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
7887 Points ∼99% 0%
OnePlus 6T
7969 Points ∼100% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
6370 Points ∼80% -19%
HTC U12 Plus
7945 Points ∼100% +1%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
6273 Points ∼79% -21%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5846 - 8001, n=20)
7816 Points ∼98% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 15969, n=498)
1738 Points ∼22% -78%
Memory (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
3791 Points ∼60%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3521 Points ∼56% -7%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4798 Points ∼76% +27%
OnePlus 6T
4344 Points ∼69% +15%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2625 Points ∼42% -31%
HTC U12 Plus
3641 Points ∼58% -4%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
6283 Points ∼100% +66%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2193 - 5296, n=20)
3594 Points ∼57% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 6283, n=498)
1244 Points ∼20% -67%
System (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
8146 Points ∼95%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
6556 Points ∼76% -20%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
8252 Points ∼96% +1%
OnePlus 6T
8156 Points ∼95% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
6413 Points ∼75% -21%
HTC U12 Plus
7862 Points ∼91% -3%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
8604 Points ∼100% +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4417 - 8613, n=20)
7657 Points ∼89% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 12202, n=498)
2508 Points ∼29% -69%
Overall (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
4287 Points ∼91%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3923 Points ∼84% -8%
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4213 Points ∼90% -2%
OnePlus 6T
4458 Points ∼95% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3302 Points ∼70% -23%
HTC U12 Plus
4252 Points ∼91% -1%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4687 Points ∼100% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3291 - 4693, n=20)
4099 Points ∼87% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (150 - 6097, n=502)
1254 Points ∼27% -71%

Légende

 
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Oppo Find X Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Vivo Nex Ultimate Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
OnePlus 6T Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus Samsung Exynos 9810, ARM Mali-G72 MP18, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
HTC U12 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, ARM Mali-G76 MP10, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69)
109.18 Points ∼100% +27%
HTC U12 Plus (Chrome 66)
87.036 Points ∼80% +1%
OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70)
86.123 Points ∼79% 0%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 (Chrome 70)
85.976 Points ∼79%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition (Chrome 69)
80.876 Points ∼74% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (22.5 - 90.9, n=22)
76.9 Points ∼70% -11%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0)
69.59 Points ∼64% -19%
Oppo Find X (Chrome 69)
64.809 Points ∼59% -25%
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 273, n=421)
36.7 Points ∼34% -57%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67)
22.509 Points ∼21% -74%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69)
23285 Points ∼100% +41%
OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70)
16824 Points ∼72% +2%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 (Chrome 70)
16489 Points ∼71%
HTC U12 Plus (Chrome 66)
16285 Points ∼70% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3991 - 18275, n=22)
15431 Points ∼66% -6%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0)
14760 Points ∼63% -10%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition (Chrome 69)
14617 Points ∼63% -11%
Oppo Find X (Chrome 69)
13276 Points ∼57% -19%
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 43280, n=556)
5550 Points ∼24% -66%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67)
3991 Points ∼17% -76%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (603 - 59466, n=577)
11486 ms * ∼100% -399%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67)
11203.6 ms * ∼98% -387%
Oppo Find X (Chrome 69)
3147 ms * ∼27% -37%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2154 - 11204, n=22)
2874 ms * ∼25% -25%
HTC U12 Plus (Chrome 66)
2409.6 ms * ∼21% -5%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition (Chrome 69)
2316.8 ms * ∼20% -1%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 (Chrome 70)
2299.9 ms * ∼20%
OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70)
2281.6 ms * ∼20% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0)
2059.7 ms * ∼18% +10%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69)
1951.9 ms * ∼17% +15%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69)
124 Points ∼100% +31%
HTC U12 Plus (Chrome 66)
101 Points ∼81% +6%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 (Chrome 70)
95 Points ∼77%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (19 - 103, n=15)
84.5 Points ∼68% -11%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
64 Points ∼52% -33%
Average of class Smartphone (25 - 161, n=62)
63.6 Points ∼51% -33%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Stock Browser)
19 Points ∼15% -80%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69)
334 Points ∼100% +28%
OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70)
260 Points ∼78% 0%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 (Chrome 70)
260 Points ∼78%
HTC U12 Plus (Chrome 66)
257 Points ∼77% -1%
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition (Chrome 69)
251 Points ∼75% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (260 - 291, n=21)
233 Points ∼70% -10%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0)
164 Points ∼49% -37%
Average of class Smartphone (91 - 362, n=283)
111 Points ∼33% -57%
Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67)
96 Points ∼29% -63%

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

Xiaomi Mi Mix 3Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer EditionOppo Find XVivo Nex UltimateOnePlus 6TSamsung Galaxy S9 PlusHTC U12 PlusHuawei Mate 20 ProAverage 128 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
5%
15%
5%
6%
8%
106%
187%
97%
-54%
Random Write 4KB
19.54
22.65
16%
26.98
38%
22.1
13%
22
13%
22.74
16%
104.24
433%
157.84
708%
92.1 (19.5 - 164, n=17)
371%
16.1 (0.14 - 164, n=606)
-18%
Random Read 4KB
133.24
135.21
1%
145.87
9%
126.7
-5%
138.5
4%
129.68
-3%
118.14
-11%
157.42
18%
141 (132 - 158, n=17)
6%
38.3 (1.59 - 173, n=606)
-71%
Sequential Write 256KB
206.76
205.23
-1%
206.87
0%
228.4
10%
204.4
-1%
204.94
-1%
195.82
-5%
196.39
-5%
202 (192 - 212, n=17)
-2%
79.7 (2.99 - 246, n=606)
-61%
Sequential Read 256KB
674.98
691.65
2%
760.99
13%
687.2
2%
735.3
9%
818.69
21%
709.11
5%
853.28
26%
767 (675 - 853, n=17)
14%
230 (12.1 - 895, n=606)
-66%

PUBG Mobile

01020304050Tooltip
: Ø39.9 (39-41)

Asphalt 9 Legends

010203040Tooltip
: Ø29.6 (27-31)
 31.7 °C31.6 °C31.6 °C 
 31.7 °C30.9 °C31.3 °C 
 32 °C31.7 °C30.6 °C 
Maximum: 32 °C
Moyenne: 31.5 °C
28.9 °C30.6 °C30.8 °C
28.2 °C30.6 °C31.1 °C
28.1 °C30.3 °C30.9 °C
Maximum: 31.1 °C
Moyenne: 29.9 °C
Alimentation (valeur maximale)  26.3 °C | Température ambiante de la pièce 20.8 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 31.5 °C / 89 F, compared to the average of 33.2 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 32 °C / 90 F, compared to the average of 35.7 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 31.1 °C / 88 F, compared to the average of 34.2 °C / 94 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.5 °C / 80 F, compared to the device average of 33.2 °C / 92 F.
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2035.739.62526.725.83128.722.44026.5295036.936.46326.725.48026.921.910022.323.812520.223.916017.741.220018.741.925019.248.831515.85540015.660.650013.964.363014.365.680014.866.5100013.466.9125014.370.1160014.571.9200013.873.6250013.674.9315014.174.9400014.174500014.976.763001572.9800015.269.81000014.973.41250014.766.11600014.753SPL26.784.8N0.859.7median 14.8median 66.5Delta1.711.930.32938.131.328.52831.428.536.634.224.628.624.126.520.523.11927.316.939.919.151.416.652.413.9551559.514.659.112.357.411.858.611.863.811.968.611.469.511.27011.573.311.370.510.968.710.568.610.76610.665.210.566.410.655.710.638.964.357.22480.516.810.40.545.3median 11.8median 59.52.28.4hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseXiaomi Mi Mix 3OnePlus 6T
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.4% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 19% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 69% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 50% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 41% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

OnePlus 6T audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 18% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.9% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 17% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 72% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 48% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 43% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Consommation énergétique
Éteint/en veilledarklight 0.01 / 0.11 Watts
Au reposdarkmidlight 0.49 / 0.67 / 0.87 Watts
Fortement sollicité midlight 3.64 / 9.04 Watts
 color bar
Légende: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
3200 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3000 mAh
Oppo Find X
3730 mAh
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4000 mAh
OnePlus 6T
3700 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3500 mAh
HTC U12 Plus
3500 mAh
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4200 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-192%
-130%
-57%
-51%
-18%
-104%
-94%
-79%
-68%
Idle Minimum *
0.49
1.8
-267%
0.9
-84%
0.9
-84%
0.7
-43%
0.68
-39%
0.77
-57%
0.95
-94%
0.802 (0.42 - 1.8, n=19)
-64%
0.881 (0.2 - 3.4, n=634)
-80%
Idle Average *
0.67
2.9
-333%
1.9
-184%
1.5
-124%
1.1
-64%
0.95
-42%
2.18
-225%
2.17
-224%
1.722 (0.67 - 2.9, n=19)
-157%
1.721 (0.6 - 6.2, n=633)
-157%
Idle Maximum *
0.87
3.5
-302%
3.2
-268%
1.7
-95%
2.1
-141%
1.09
-25%
2.21
-154%
2.25
-159%
2.1 (0.87 - 3.5, n=19)
-141%
1.998 (0.74 - 6.6, n=634)
-130%
Load Average *
3.64
4.8
-32%
7.1
-95%
3.7
-2%
4.2
-15%
4.58
-26%
6.25
-72%
4.47
-23%
4.79 (3.64 - 7.2, n=19)
-32%
4.03 (0.8 - 10.8, n=628)
-11%
Load Maximum *
9.04
11.2
-24%
10.7
-18%
7.2
20%
8.3
8%
5.16
43%
10.16
-12%
6.15
32%
9.2 (6.2 - 12.3, n=19)
-2%
5.75 (1.2 - 14.2, n=628)
36%

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

Autonomie
Au repos (module WiFi éteint, luminosité au minimum)
30h 10min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
11h 59min
En lecture de Big Buck Bunny encodé en H.264 1080p
13h 56min
Fortement sollicité (luminosité au maximum)
3h 14min
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
3200 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 8 Explorer Edition
3000 mAh
Oppo Find X
3730 mAh
Vivo Nex Ultimate
4000 mAh
OnePlus 6T
3700 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3500 mAh
HTC U12 Plus
3500 mAh
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
4200 mAh
Autonomie de la batterie
-5%
-17%
23%
18%
-13%
-19%
13%
Reader / Idle
1810
1401
-23%
1925
6%
1936
7%
1343
-26%
1452
-20%
1747
-3%
H.264
836
921
10%
1133
36%
903
8%
674
-19%
464
-44%
854
2%
WiFi v1.3
719
694
-3%
596
-17%
1026
43%
865
20%
521
-28%
507
-29%
767
7%
Load
194
191
-2%
203
5%
261
35%
237
22%
230
19%
282
45%

Points positifs

+ excellent écran OLED
+ Wifi rapide
+ design
+ qualité du châssis
+ appareils photo
+ GPS précis
+ performances
+ chauffe bien maîtrisée...

Points négatifs

- ...mais avec un léger throttling
- poids
- système coulissant parfois un peu bancal
- USB 2.0
- Widevine niveau 3
- stockage non extensible
En test : le Xiaomi Mi Mix 3. Modèle de test fourni par TradingShenzhen.
En test : le Xiaomi Mi Mix 3. Modèle de test fourni par TradingShenzhen.

Le Mi Mix 3 est un très bon smartphone sans bordures d’écran, qui réussit à s’affranchir de toute encoche. L’écran est un progrès par rapport au Mi 8. La technologie d’écran utilisée par Xiaomi est excellente.

Nous avons été surpris du bon comportement de la relativement petite batterie du smartphone coulissant. Nos tests montrent que le Mi Mix 3 possède une très bonne autonomie grâce à sa consommation très bien maîtrisée. La plupart des utilisateurs tiendront facilement une journée sans avoir à charger.

Le Mi Mix est un smartphone très réussi, qui ne sera peut-être pas le meilleur des compagnons de voyage, à cause de son mécanisme coulissant.

Le Mi Mix 3 de Xiaomi n’a pas beaucoup de faiblesses. Mais à cause du mécanisme coulissant, l’appareil n’a pas de certification IP, il est assez lourd, et il est sans doute plus susceptible de se casser qu’un smartphone classique, fait d’un bloc.

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

Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 - 11/28/2018 v6
Marcus Herbrich

Châssis
87%
Clavier
67 / 75 → 89%
Dispositif de pointage
93%
Connectivité
48 / 60 → 79%
Poids
88%
Autonomie
95%
Écran
91%
Performances en jeu
69 / 63 → 100%
Performances dans les applications
76 / 70 → 100%
Chauffe
94%
Nuisance sonore
100%
Audio
69 / 91 → 76%
Appareil photo
79%
Moyenne
81%
88%
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 Xiaomi Mi Mix 3
Marcus Herbrich, 2018-12- 2 (Update: 2018-12- 2)