Notebookcheck

Courte critique du smartphone Xiaomi Pocophone F1

Casseur de prix. Le Xiaomi Pocophone F1 est un smartphone avec des composants haut de gammes, un bon appareil photo, et une grosse autonomie, et qui coûte moins de 350 €. Découvrez dans notre rapport de test si le concept de Xiaomi d’un fleuron à bas prix fonctionne, et quels compromis ont dû être faits pour conserver ce prix réduit.
Daniel Schmidt, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, Felicitas Krohn (traduit par Prévots), 🇺🇸 🇩🇪 ...
, , , , , ,
relation de la recherche.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 
Xiaomi Poco F1 (Poco F Gamme)
Processeur
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 8 x 2.8 GHz, Cortex-A75 / A55 (Kryo 385)
Carte graphique
Mémoire
6144 Mo 
Écran
6.18 pouces 18.7:9, 2246 x 1080 pixel 403 PPP, capacitif 10 points, IPS, brillant: oui
Disque dur
64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 64 Go 
, 52 Go libres
Connexions
1 USB 2.0, Connectique audio: jack 3,5 mm, Lecteur de cartes mémoires: micro SD, 1 Lecteur d'empreintes digitales, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Capteurs: boussole, accéléromètre, capteur à effet Hall, capteur de proximité, reconnaissance faciale infrarouge, BeiDou
Réseau
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM / GPRS / EDGE : 850, 900, 1 800, 1 900 MHz. UMTS / HSPA+ : bandes 1, 2, 5, 8. LTE Cat. 16 : bandes 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 38, 40, 41., Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Taille
Hauteur x Largeur x Profondeur (en mm): 8.8 x 155.5 x 75.2
Batterie
4000 mAh Lithium-Polymère
Système d'exploitation
Android 8.1 Oreo
Appareil photo
Appareil photo primaire: 12 MPix double capteur : 12 MP - f/1,9, 1 / 2,55”, 1,4 μm ; 5 MP - f/2,0, 1,12 μm
Appareil photo secondaire: 20 MPix
Fonctionnalités additionnelles
Clavier: virtuel, chargeur, câble USB A vers USB C, outil pour carte SIM, coque en silicone, guide de démarrage rapide, MIUI 9.5, 12 Mois Garantie, DAS : corps - 1,582 W/kg ; tête - 0,537 W/kg, fanless
Poids
182 g
Prix
349 euros
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Comparaison des tailles

158.4 mm 75.64 mm 9.55 mm 186 g158.1 mm 73.8 mm 8.5 mm 189 g155.5 mm 75.2 mm 8.8 mm 182 g155.7 mm 75.4 mm 7.75 mm 177 g155 mm 73.88 mm 7.65 mm 174 g153.2 mm 71.9 mm 7.9 mm 162 g149.6 mm 71.2 mm 7.7 mm 153 g
Networking
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
Adreno 630, SD 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
647 MBit/s ∼100% 0%
Xiaomi Poco F1
Adreno 630, SD 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
647 (598min - 665max) MBit/s ∼100%
OnePlus 6
Adreno 630, SD 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
612 MBit/s ∼95% -5%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
Mali-G72 MP18, Exynos 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
519 MBit/s ∼80% -20%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.59 - 1599, n=303, last 2 years)
415 MBit/s ∼64% -36%
Honor 10
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
236 MBit/s ∼36% -64%
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
Adreno 630, SD 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
677 MBit/s ∼100% 0%
Xiaomi Poco F1
Adreno 630, SD 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
675 (630min - 704max) MBit/s ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
Mali-G72 MP18, Exynos 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
652 MBit/s ∼96% -3%
OnePlus 6
Adreno 630, SD 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
609 MBit/s ∼90% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (15.5 - 1414, n=303, last 2 years)
419 MBit/s ∼62% -38%
Honor 10
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
210 MBit/s ∼31% -69%
04080120160200240280320360400440480520560600640680641656661674676677673681668673693685692704678682630682648661680684687664675689683687677671641656661674676677673681668673693685692704678682630682648661680684687664675689683687677671626663644656644643655653647653640665645649650645647661598644657622646651646656646660648651Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø674 (630-704)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø647 (598-665)

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 Pocophone F1 - Mire de test.
Mire de test.
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 - Mire de test zoomée.
483
cd/m²
468
cd/m²
477
cd/m²
502
cd/m²
489
cd/m²
483
cd/m²
498
cd/m²
483
cd/m²
494
cd/m²
Homogénéité de la luminosité
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 502 cd/m² Moyenne: 486.3 cd/m² Minimum: 1.09 cd/m²
Homogénéité de la luminosité: 93 %
Valeur mesurée au centre, sur batterie: 489 cd/m²
Contraste: 1438:1 (Valeurs des noirs: 0.34 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.8 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.6
ΔE Greyscale 4.4 | 0.64-98 Ø5.8
99.5% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.22
Xiaomi Poco F1
IPS, 2246x1080, 6.18
Honor 10
IPS, 2280x1080, 5.84
OnePlus 6
Optic AMOLED, 2280x1080, 6.28
Nokia 7 Plus
IPS, 2160x1080, 6.00
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.20
LG G7 ThinQ
IPS, 3120x1440, 6.10
Screen
9%
15%
7%
27%
7%
Brightness middle
489
555
13%
430
-12%
458
-6%
565
16%
974
99%
Brightness
486
537
10%
437
-10%
463
-5%
571
17%
975
101%
Brightness Distribution
93
94
1%
87
-6%
92
-1%
96
3%
96
3%
Black Level *
0.34
0.39
-15%
0.22
35%
0.49
-44%
Contrast
1438
1423
-1%
2082
45%
1988
38%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
3.8
2.3
39%
2.3
39%
4
-5%
2.3
39%
5.4
-42%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
7.1
6
15%
4.6
35%
7.4
-4%
4.8
32%
13.1
-85%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
4.4
3.9
11%
2.4
45%
4.7
-7%
1.9
57%
5
-14%
Gamma
2.22 99%
2.19 100%
2.28 96%
2.19 100%
2.16 102%
2.31 95%
CCT
7213 90%
6212 105%
6160 106%
7425 88%
6332 103%
7480 87%

* ... 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 2315 Hz ≤ 20 Niveau de luminosité

Le rétroéclairage de l'écran scintille à la fréquence de 2315 Hz (certainement du fait de l'utilisation d'une MDI - Modulation de largeur d'impulsion) à un niveau de luminosité inférieur ou égal à 20 % . Aucun scintillement ne devrait être perceptible au-dessus de cette valeur.

La fréquence de rafraîchissement de 2315 Hz est élevée, la grande majorité des utilisateurs ne devrait pas percevoir de scintillements et être sujette à une fatigue oculaire accrue.

En comparaison, 52 % des appareils testés n'emploient pas MDI pour assombrir leur écran. Nous avons relevé une moyenne à 14804 (minimum : 5 - maximum : 2500000) 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
24 ms ... hausse ↗ et chute ↘ combinées↗ 9.2 ms hausse
↘ 14.8 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. » 38 % des appareils testés affichent de meilleures performances.
Cela signifie que les latences relevées sont similaires à la moyenne (24 ms) de tous les appareils testés.
       Temps de réponse gris 50% à gris 80%
44 ms ... hausse ↗ et chute ↘ combinées↗ 21.6 ms hausse
↘ 22.4 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. » 64 % des appareils testés affichent de meilleures performances.
Cela signifie que les latences relevées sont moins bonnes que la moyenne (38.1 ms) de tous les appareils testés.
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
227026 Points ∼99%
Honor 10
174272 Points ∼76% -23%
OnePlus 6
230421 Points ∼100% +1%
Nokia 7 Plus
117165 Points ∼51% -48%
LG G7 ThinQ
223464 Points ∼97% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
222290 Points ∼96% -2%
Huawei P20 Pro
179709 Points ∼78% -21%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
226124 Points ∼98% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (162183 - 242953, n=23)
225534 Points ∼98% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (51390 - 293444, n=6, last 2 years)
159885 Points ∼69% -30%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
263165 Points ∼95%
Honor 10
205297 Points ∼74% -22%
OnePlus 6
266686 Points ∼96% +1%
Nokia 7 Plus
141701 Points ∼51% -46%
LG G7 ThinQ
256276 Points ∼92% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
250577 Points ∼90% -5%
Huawei P20 Pro
207959 Points ∼75% -21%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
246366 Points ∼89% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (246366 - 299878, n=27)
277434 Points ∼100% +5%
Average of class Smartphone (65996 - 462516, n=18, last 2 years)
255787 Points ∼92% -3%
PCMark for Android
Work performance score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
9664 Points ∼95%
Honor 10
8530 Points ∼84% -12%
OnePlus 6
9630 Points ∼95% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus
6825 Points ∼67% -29%
LG G7 ThinQ
9503 Points ∼94% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
5822 Points ∼58% -40%
Huawei P20 Pro
8115 Points ∼80% -16%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
9858 Points ∼97% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7998 - 13211, n=26)
10123 Points ∼100% +5%
Average of class Smartphone (2689 - 19989, n=223, last 2 years)
9982 Points ∼99% +3%
Work 2.0 performance score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
8101 Points ∼97%
Honor 10
7046 Points ∼84% -13%
OnePlus 6
8282 Points ∼99% +2%
Nokia 7 Plus
6077 Points ∼73% -25%
LG G7 ThinQ
7717 Points ∼92% -5%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
5319 Points ∼64% -34%
Huawei P20 Pro
6982 Points ∼83% -14%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
8178 Points ∼98% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7360 - 9868, n=27)
8368 Points ∼100% +3%
Average of class Smartphone (82 - 15299, n=267, last 2 years)
7878 Points ∼94% -3%
BaseMark OS II
Overall (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
3838 Points ∼89%
Honor 10
3374 Points ∼78% -12%
OnePlus 6
4308 Points ∼100% +12%
Nokia 7 Plus
2369 Points ∼55% -38%
LG G7 ThinQ
4257 Points ∼99% +11%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3302 Points ∼77% -14%
Huawei P20 Pro
3271 Points ∼76% -15%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
4288 Points ∼100% +12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3291 - 4693, n=26)
4111 Points ∼95% +7%
Average of class Smartphone (323 - 6959, n=198, last 2 years)
3625 Points ∼84% -6%
System (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
6506 Points ∼77%
Honor 10
5882 Points ∼70% -10%
OnePlus 6
8228 Points ∼98% +26%
Nokia 7 Plus
4976 Points ∼59% -24%
LG G7 ThinQ
8070 Points ∼96% +24%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
6413 Points ∼76% -1%
Huawei P20 Pro
5965 Points ∼71% -8%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
8418 Points ∼100% +29%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4417 - 8613, n=26)
7644 Points ∼91% +17%
Average of class Smartphone (1160 - 14189, n=198, last 2 years)
6635 Points ∼79% +2%
Memory (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
3239 Points ∼76%
Honor 10
3808 Points ∼90% +18%
OnePlus 6
3799 Points ∼90% +17%
Nokia 7 Plus
2503 Points ∼59% -23%
LG G7 ThinQ
3744 Points ∼88% +16%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2625 Points ∼62% -19%
Huawei P20 Pro
4050 Points ∼95% +25%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
3704 Points ∼87% +14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2193 - 5296, n=26)
3649 Points ∼86% +13%
Average of class Smartphone (522 - 9044, n=198, last 2 years)
4241 Points ∼100% +31%
Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
7945 Points ∼100%
Honor 10
4397 Points ∼55% -45%
OnePlus 6
7949 Points ∼100% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus
2298 Points ∼29% -71%
LG G7 ThinQ
7906 Points ∼99% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
6370 Points ∼80% -20%
Huawei P20 Pro
3725 Points ∼47% -53%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
7743 Points ∼97% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5846 - 8001, n=26)
7797 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (349 - 16996, n=198, last 2 years)
5613 Points ∼71% -29%
Web (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
1296 Points ∼93%
Honor 10
1316 Points ∼94% +2%
OnePlus 6
1386 Points ∼99% +7%
Nokia 7 Plus
1101 Points ∼79% -15%
LG G7 ThinQ
1374 Points ∼98% +6%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
1109 Points ∼79% -14%
Huawei P20 Pro
1273 Points ∼91% -2%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
1400 Points ∼100% +8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (1009 - 1613, n=26)
1344 Points ∼96% +4%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 2169, n=198, last 2 years)
1272 Points ∼91% -2%
Geekbench 4.1 - 4.4
64 Bit Single-Core Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
2468 Points ∼65%
Honor 10
1890 Points ∼50% -23%
Nokia 7 Plus
1646 Points ∼44% -33%
LG G7 ThinQ
2448 Points ∼65% -1%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3776 Points ∼100% +53%
Huawei P20 Pro
1922 Points ∼51% -22%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
2457 Points ∼65% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2272 - 2500, n=27)
2416 Points ∼64% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (412 - 5099, n=69, last 2 years)
2615 Points ∼69% +6%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
9182 Points ∼100%
Honor 10
6610 Points ∼72% -28%
Nokia 7 Plus
5867 Points ∼64% -36%
LG G7 ThinQ
9029 Points ∼98% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
8963 Points ∼98% -2%
Huawei P20 Pro
6756 Points ∼74% -26%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
8522 Points ∼93% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7754 - 9231, n=27)
8705 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (1163 - 14895, n=69, last 2 years)
7940 Points ∼86% -14%
Compute RenderScript Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
14369 Points ∼100%
Honor 10
8634 Points ∼60% -40%
LG G7 ThinQ
13497 Points ∼94% -6%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
6202 Points ∼43% -57%
Huawei P20 Pro
8025 Points ∼56% -44%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
14417 Points ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (10876 - 14489, n=25)
13578 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (2166 - 12228, n=60, last 2 years)
6821 Points ∼47% -53%
3DMark
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
63159 Points ∼98%
Honor 10
29111 Points ∼45% -54%
OnePlus 6
62241 Points ∼97% -1%
Nokia 7 Plus
26610 Points ∼41% -58%
LG G7 ThinQ
56669 Points ∼88% -10%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
39745 Points ∼62% -37%
Huawei P20 Pro
30176 Points ∼47% -52%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
64152 Points ∼100% +2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (34855 - 65330, n=27)
61139 Points ∼95% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (2920 - 117606, n=207, last 2 years)
40247 Points ∼63% -36%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
82125 Points ∼100%
Honor 10
32674 Points ∼40% -60%
OnePlus 6
81269 Points ∼99% -1%
Nokia 7 Plus
29333 Points ∼36% -64%
LG G7 ThinQ
80534 Points ∼98% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
46610 Points ∼57% -43%
Huawei P20 Pro
33472 Points ∼41% -59%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
81502 Points ∼99% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (53794 - 85487, n=27)
80548 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (2177 - 224130, n=207, last 2 years)
58049 Points ∼71% -29%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
34928 Points ∼95%
Honor 10
21070 Points ∼57% -40%
OnePlus 6
34191 Points ∼93% -2%
Nokia 7 Plus
20085 Points ∼55% -42%
LG G7 ThinQ
27817 Points ∼76% -20%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
26226 Points ∼71% -25%
Huawei P20 Pro
22441 Points ∼61% -36%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
36762 Points ∼100% +5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (15614 - 37475, n=27)
33322 Points ∼91% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (8324 - 59268, n=207, last 2 years)
23323 Points ∼63% -33%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
5687 Points ∼90%
Honor 10
3358 Points ∼53% -41%
OnePlus 6
6304 Points ∼100% +11%
Nokia 7 Plus
2035 Points ∼32% -64%
LG G7 ThinQ
5799 Points ∼92% +2%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3895 Points ∼62% -32%
Huawei P20 Pro
3223 Points ∼51% -43%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
5492 Points ∼87% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4363 - 6454, n=27)
5811 Points ∼92% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (68 - 11256, n=260, last 2 years)
3369 Points ∼53% -41%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
8261 Points ∼100%
Honor 10
3573 Points ∼43% -57%
OnePlus 6
8252 Points ∼100% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus
1895 Points ∼23% -77%
LG G7 ThinQ
7633 Points ∼92% -8%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
4637 Points ∼56% -44%
Huawei P20 Pro
3335 Points ∼40% -60%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
8219 Points ∼99% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5637 - 8312, n=27)
7763 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (54 - 16670, n=260, last 2 years)
3943 Points ∼48% -52%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
2720 Points ∼79%
Honor 10
2773 Points ∼80% +2%
OnePlus 6
3452 Points ∼100% +27%
Nokia 7 Plus
2734 Points ∼79% +1%
LG G7 ThinQ
3150 Points ∼91% +16%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2496 Points ∼72% -8%
Huawei P20 Pro
2885 Points ∼84% +6%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
2541 Points ∼74% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2124 - 3668, n=27)
3115 Points ∼90% +15%
Average of class Smartphone (607 - 5301, n=260, last 2 years)
2756 Points ∼80% +1%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
3972 Points ∼84%
Honor 10
2891 Points ∼61% -27%
OnePlus 6
4673 Points ∼99% +18%
Nokia 7 Plus
1332 Points ∼28% -66%
LG G7 ThinQ
4471 Points ∼94% +13%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3256 Points ∼69% -18%
Huawei P20 Pro
2996 Points ∼63% -25%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
4734 Points ∼100% +19%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3197 - 4734, n=27)
4388 Points ∼93% +10%
Average of class Smartphone (78 - 9138, n=258, last 2 years)
2629 Points ∼56% -34%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
4746 Points ∼91%
Honor 10
2993 Points ∼57% -37%
OnePlus 6
5212 Points ∼100% +10%
Nokia 7 Plus
1161 Points ∼22% -76%
LG G7 ThinQ
5006 Points ∼96% +5%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3582 Points ∼69% -25%
Huawei P20 Pro
3017 Points ∼58% -36%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
5190 Points ∼100% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3488 - 5246, n=27)
4919 Points ∼94% +4%
Average of class Smartphone (62 - 11573, n=258, last 2 years)
2786 Points ∼53% -41%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
2528 Points ∼70%
Honor 10
2582 Points ∼71% +2%
OnePlus 6
3432 Points ∼95% +36%
Nokia 7 Plus
2749 Points ∼76% +9%
LG G7 ThinQ
3255 Points ∼90% +29%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2469 Points ∼68% -2%
Huawei P20 Pro
2926 Points ∼81% +16%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
3620 Points ∼100% +43%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2118 - 3703, n=27)
3217 Points ∼89% +27%
Average of class Smartphone (435 - 5318, n=258, last 2 years)
2802 Points ∼77% +11%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
60 fps ∼97%
Honor 10
59 fps ∼95% -2%
OnePlus 6
60 fps ∼97% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus
48 fps ∼77% -20%
LG G7 ThinQ
60 fps ∼97% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
60 fps ∼97% 0%
Huawei P20 Pro
60 fps ∼97% 0%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
60 fps ∼97% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (58 - 89, n=27)
62.1 fps ∼100% +4%
Average of class Smartphone (8.2 - 143, n=215, last 2 years)
57 fps ∼92% -5%
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
150 fps ∼100%
Honor 10
124 fps ∼83% -17%
OnePlus 6
150 fps ∼100% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus
50 fps ∼33% -67%
LG G7 ThinQ
144 fps ∼96% -4%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
147 fps ∼98% -2%
Huawei P20 Pro
121 fps ∼81% -19%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
150 fps ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (98 - 152, n=28)
142 fps ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (4.3 - 322, n=215, last 2 years)
106 fps ∼71% -29%
GFXBench 3.0
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
58 fps ∼100%
Honor 10
50 fps ∼86% -14%
OnePlus 6
58 fps ∼100% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus
22 fps ∼38% -62%
LG G7 ThinQ
41 fps ∼71% -29%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
45 fps ∼78% -22%
Huawei P20 Pro
54 fps ∼93% -7%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
58 fps ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (33 - 75, n=27)
54.4 fps ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (4.5 - 120, n=213, last 2 years)
45 fps ∼78% -22%
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
71 fps ∼96%
Honor 10
59 fps ∼80% -17%
OnePlus 6
66 fps ∼89% -7%
Nokia 7 Plus
23 fps ∼31% -68%
LG G7 ThinQ
63 fps ∼85% -11%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
74 fps ∼100% +4%
Huawei P20 Pro
61 fps ∼82% -14%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
71 fps ∼96% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (54 - 83, n=27)
73.1 fps ∼99% +3%
Average of class Smartphone (1 - 180, n=214, last 2 years)
62 fps ∼84% -13%
GFXBench 3.1
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
54 fps ∼96%
Honor 10
34 fps ∼61% -37%
OnePlus 6
54 fps ∼96% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus
15 fps ∼27% -72%
LG G7 ThinQ
26 fps ∼46% -52%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
24 fps ∼43% -56%
Huawei P20 Pro
36 fps ∼64% -33%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
56 fps ∼100% +4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (21 - 59, n=27)
45.3 fps ∼81% -16%
Average of class Smartphone (3.1 - 106, n=212, last 2 years)
35.4 fps ∼63% -34%
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
35 fps ∼60%
Honor 10
39 fps ∼67% +11%
OnePlus 6
56 fps ∼97% +60%
Nokia 7 Plus
14 fps ∼24% -60%
LG G7 ThinQ
51 fps ∼88% +46%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
47 fps ∼81% +34%
Huawei P20 Pro
39 fps ∼67% +11%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
58 fps ∼100% +66%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (32 - 61, n=28)
53.9 fps ∼93% +54%
Average of class Smartphone (1.4 - 121, n=212, last 2 years)
42.5 fps ∼73% +21%
GFXBench
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
33 fps ∼89%
Honor 10
20 fps ∼54% -39%
OnePlus 6
32 fps ∼86% -3%
Nokia 7 Plus
9.1 fps ∼25% -72%
LG G7 ThinQ
17 fps ∼46% -48%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
14 fps ∼38% -58%
Huawei P20 Pro
22 fps ∼59% -33%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
37 fps ∼100% +12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (13 - 37, n=27)
27.7 fps ∼75% -16%
Average of class Smartphone (1.5 - 61, n=211, last 2 years)
22.2 fps ∼60% -33%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Poco F1
35 fps ∼100%
Honor 10
23 fps ∼66% -34%
OnePlus 6
35 fps ∼100% 0%
Nokia 7 Plus
8.3 fps ∼24% -76%
LG G7 ThinQ
33 fps ∼94% -6%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
28 fps ∼80% -20%
Huawei P20 Pro
23 fps ∼66% -34%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
35 fps ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (25 - 35, n=27)
33.4 fps ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (1.8 - 75, n=211, last 2 years)
25.5 fps ∼73% -27%
Lightmark - 1920x1080 1080p (Classer selon les valeurs)
Nokia 7 Plus
15.07 fps ∼42%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
35.83 fps ∼100%
Huawei P20 Pro
25.93 fps ∼72%
Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
OnePlus 6
1169 Points ∼79%
Nokia 7 Plus
349 Points ∼24%
LG G7 ThinQ
1176 Points ∼79%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
1481 Points ∼100%
Huawei P20 Pro
887 Points ∼60%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (1169 - 1201, n=5)
1179 Points ∼80%
Average of class Smartphone (242 - 3575, n=58, last 2 years)
1260 Points ∼85%

Légende

 
Xiaomi Poco F1 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Honor 10 HiSilicon Kirin 970, ARM Mali-G72 MP12, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
OnePlus 6 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Nokia 7 Plus Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Qualcomm Adreno 512, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
LG G7 ThinQ Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus Samsung Exynos 9810, ARM Mali-G72 MP18, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Huawei P20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 970, ARM Mali-G72 MP12, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 375, n=192, last 2 years)
89.7 Points ∼100% +18%
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66)
88.081 Points ∼98% +16%
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
87.695 Points ∼98% +15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (22.5 - 90.9, n=25)
80.3 Points ∼90% +6%
Xiaomi Poco F1 (Chrome 68)
75.959 Points ∼85%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium (Chrome 68)
71.172 Points ∼79% -6%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0)
69.59 Points ∼78% -8%
Huawei P20 Pro (Chrome 65)
58.255 Points ∼65% -23%
Honor 10 (Chrome 66)
56.506 Points ∼63% -26%
Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60)
53.89 Points ∼60% -29%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (1986 - 58632, n=209, last 2 years)
17325 Points ∼100% +19%
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
17026 Points ∼98% +17%
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66)
16720 Points ∼97% +15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3991 - 18275, n=28)
15153 Points ∼87% +4%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0)
14760 Points ∼85% +2%
Xiaomi Poco F1 (Chrome 68)
14514 Points ∼84%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium (Chrome 68)
13360 Points ∼77% -8%
Huawei P20 Pro (Chrome 65)
11584 Points ∼67% -20%
Honor 10 (Chrome 66)
10965 Points ∼63% -24%
Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60)
10945 Points ∼63% -25%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (460 - 29635, n=211, last 2 years)
3999 ms * ∼100% -47%
Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60)
3937.3 ms * ∼98% -45%
Honor 10 (Chrome 66)
3899 ms * ∼97% -44%
Huawei P20 Pro (Chrome 65)
3852.2 ms * ∼96% -42%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium (Chrome 68)
3179 ms * ∼79% -17%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2154 - 11204, n=28)
2905 ms * ∼73% -7%
Xiaomi Poco F1 (Chrome 68)
2713.6 ms * ∼68%
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66)
2484.1 ms * ∼62% +8%
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
2445 ms * ∼61% +10%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0)
2059.7 ms * ∼52% +24%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
252 Points ∼100% +13%
LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66)
252 Points ∼100% +13%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (96 - 291, n=23)
246 Points ∼98% +10%
Xiaomi Poco F1 (Chrome 68)
223 Points ∼88%
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium (Chrome 68)
211 Points ∼84% -5%
Huawei P20 Pro (Chrome 65)
182 Points ∼72% -18%
Honor 10 (Chrome 66)
182 Points ∼72% -18%
Average of class Smartphone (165 - 285, n=20, last 2 years)
177 Points ∼70% -21%
Nokia 7 Plus (Chrome 60)
168 Points ∼67% -25%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus (Samsung Browser 7.0)
164 Points ∼65% -26%

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

Xiaomi Poco F1Nokia 7 PlusLG G7 ThinQSamsung Galaxy S9 PlusSony Xperia XZ2 PremiumHonor 10OnePlus 6Average 64 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-12%
8%
17%
-7%
225%
23%
58%
117%
Sequential Read 256KB
705.38
283.12
-60%
695.15
-1%
818.69
16%
748.59
6%
827.69
17%
725.6
3%
698 (392 - 895, n=47)
-1%
752 (41.9 - 2037, n=285, last 2 years)
7%
Sequential Write 256KB
155.57
211.6
36%
176.45
13%
204.94
32%
170.98
10%
192.12
23%
201.4
29%
205 (133 - 388, n=47)
32%
327 (11.9 - 1321, n=285, last 2 years)
110%
Random Read 4KB
101.01
54.65
-46%
110.46
9%
129.68
28%
135.99
35%
145.88
44%
137
36%
134 (78.2 - 175, n=47)
33%
134 (13.5 - 325, n=285, last 2 years)
33%
Random Write 4KB
17.81
19.62
10%
23.26
31%
22.74
28%
21.75
22%
163
815%
21.8
22%
75.8 (8.77 - 168, n=47)
326%
120 (4.97 - 330, n=285, last 2 years)
574%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
85.3 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
82.21
-4%
84.72 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-1%
79.22 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-7%
34.18 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-60%
68.6 (18 - 87.1, n=33)
-20%
75.9 (13.4 - 154, n=175, last 2 years)
-11%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
65.58 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
62.31
-5%
62.67 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-4%
67.18 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
2%
30.23 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-54%
52.2 (17.1 - 71.9, n=33)
-20%
58.2 (8.4 - 83.3, n=175, last 2 years)
-11%
PUBG Mobile
0510152025303540394040404038404040343540403440374039413218232634384140403940403941403841403940384039394039413937383940403540394040404039403940414039414040393740304040394040394040404040404040393640404140403737404040353839394040404040394140403941394040404140403940404040404039403940404040404040404041394040404040404039414040403940404041394040404040404040384140404040394040413841403939404139414039404040404040403941404040403939413940403941394140403940404040404039404040404040404040404039414040404040404039413940414039404039404139404039414040394040404040404040403941403940404040404139404040404140394040404039403340403338403540404039403939404040404039404041404040394041394040404038414040404039404140403838404040404039404040394040404040414039413940404040404139404040394139404139404040394040404040404040403940413940404040404039404139414039394040404040404040404040404040404040404039404040414039404040413941394040404040413940404040403940404039414040404040394040404040394140393941394040413540404139404139404040404040404040403941394040404040404040394040403940404041394039404040404039404040403937384028404040404040383939414039404040404039404040404040393839404040403940394040403939404040413940404040404041394040404040403940404040413940404040404039404041404039404040404040384140404040403941404040403940404041404039404139414040393940413941394040404040404040394140404039413941404039404040413940394041404040403940413940404040404040404040314140403941393836404040393740404139413940404040414039404040404139404040404040394040404040404039414040404039404140404039404040404140394040404040404040404040404040394040404139404040393821183940393940404040384040403435404034403740394132182326343841404039404039414038414039403840393940394139373839404035403940404040394039404140394140403937403040403940403940404040404040403936404041404037374040403538393940404040403941404039413940404041404039404040404040394039404040404040404040413940404040404040394140404039404040413940404040404040403841404040403940404138414039394041394140394040404040404039414040404039394139404039413941404039404040404040394040404040404040404040394140404040404040394139404140394040394041394040394140403940404040404040404039414039404040404041394040404041403940404040394033404033384035404040394039394040404040394040414040403940413940404040384140404040394041404038384040404040394040403940404040404140394139404040404041394040403941394041394040403940404040404040404039404139404040404040394041394140393940404040404040404040404040404040404040394040404140394040404139413940404040404139404040404039404040394140404040403940404040403941403939413940404135404041394041394040404040404040404039413940404040404040403940404039404040413940394040404040394040404039373840284040404040403839394140394040404040394040404040403938394040404039403940404039394040404139404040404040413940404040404039404040404139404040404040394040414040394040404040403841404040404039414040404039404040414040394041394140403939404139413940404040404040403941404040394139414040394040404139403940414040404039404139404040404040404040403141404039413938364040403937404041394139404040404140394040404041394040404040403940404040404040394140404040394041404040394040404041403940404040404040404040404040403940404041394040403938211839403940404040274040323430254032353326404041394040394038404041384131293940344040383940404040403940403939403529334040393940403940393940393340413939404040324039393936404039394040404040394139413940404039404139404040404039414039404039413937394040394040403941403940403940393941403940404039404040404035403840404036404040404040404036403939404140394040404040404040384011363936Tooltip
; HD; 0.8.0: Ø39.6 (18-41)
; Balanced; 0.8.0: Ø38.6 (11-41)
Arena of Valor
05101520253035404550556059606060606059606060606060596044606060585860606060605960606060606059605960606060596060606060605960606060605758575859596057585960606060596060596060596060606060595960606060595959606060606059606060606060596060595859565959576060605960606060606059565957595960596060606060596060605958565860606060606059606060605858596060606060596060606060605960605960605959606060606059606057585960585859595959585858605860605960605959595955565458606059606060606060586060606060605960606059585756575758565858586060606060596060606060596060606060605960606060606059606060606059606060605856575859585959595960606060605960606060606059606060606060596059606060596060606060605960606060606059606060606059585957605960596059596058605960606060605960576060606059606060605959585960606060596060606060605960596060595959606060606059605960605959586060606060605960606060605960595959586059606060596060596060606060596060606060605960606060606059606060606059605758606060596060606060605959595857545860606060605858596060606060596060606060596060606060605960606060606059606060606059606060606060596060606060605960606060585960585959606059606060606060596060606060596060586060605960606060606059606060606059606060606060596060606060605960605959605960606060606059606060605360596060585660596060606060605960606060595657575960595858596060595857565657565958605960606060605960606060606059606060606060596060606060596060606060595859595860606059606060606059606058606060595960606060605960606060605960606060606059606060606060596060606060595857585960605960606060606059586060606059606034595749596060Tooltip
; 1.24.1.2: Ø59.4 (34-60)
 33.6 °C33.8 °C35.1 °C 
 33.8 °C33 °C34.7 °C 
 33.2 °C33 °C34.7 °C 
Maximum: 35.1 °C
Moyenne: 33.9 °C
30.5 °C32 °C33.9 °C
29.3 °C31.4 °C32.9 °C
29.6 °C31.9 °C32 °C
Maximum: 33.9 °C
Moyenne: 31.5 °C
Alimentation (valeur maximale)  24.6 °C | Température ambiante de la pièce 20.2 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 33.9 °C / 93 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 35.1 °C / 95 F, compared to the average of 35.2 °C / 95 F, ranging from 22.4 to 52.9 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 33.9 °C / 93 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.6 °C / 83 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2035.430.12533.236.83123.730.14031.933.15039.738.86330.233.98025.221.510021.923.812522.326.416019.338.320016.646.925016.347.931516.552.44001858.750015.463.763015.663.180014.269.6100014.876.3125014.672.6160014.468.4200014.575.2250014.870.8315014.674.1400014.871.6500014.871.1630015.266.6800014.663.81000015.162.11250014.654.41600015.344.9SPL27.183.4N0.954median 15.1median 63.7Delta1.211.83033.936.137.63228.229.429.431.541.127.928.722.123.1222421.223.521.528.120.337.718.442.617.351.516.757.81763.116.163.615.869.115.872.715.37015.870.214.9731571.514.770.914.772.51571.315.1761572.815.472.91561.716.34827.683.6157.3median 15.8median 69.11.912.5hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseXiaomi Poco F1Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Xiaomi Poco F1 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.2% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (10.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 47% of all tested devices in this class were better, 13% similar, 40% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 67% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 25% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 34.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 51% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 37% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 70% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 23% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Consommation énergétique
Éteint/en veilledarklight 0.01 / 0.18 Watts
Au reposdarkmidlight 0.65 / 1.97 / 2.01 Watts
Fortement sollicité midlight 4.29 / 9.05 Watts
 color bar
Légende: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Currently we use the Metrahit Energy, a professional single phase power quality and energy measurement digital multimeter, for our measurements. Find out more about it here. All of our test methods can be found here.
Xiaomi Poco F1
4000 mAh
Nokia 7 Plus
3800 mAh
Honor 10
3400 mAh
OnePlus 6
3300 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3500 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
3%
-22%
16%
26%
-8%
-5%
Idle Minimum *
0.65
0.65
-0%
1.12
-72%
0.6
8%
0.68
-5%
0.862 (0.42 - 1.8, n=26)
-33%
0.934 (0.37 - 2.5, n=234, last 2 years)
-44%
Idle Average *
1.97
1.76
11%
2.26
-15%
1
49%
0.95
52%
1.728 (0.67 - 2.9, n=26)
12%
1.843 (0.65 - 3.94, n=234, last 2 years)
6%
Idle Maximum *
2.01
1.78
11%
2.3
-14%
1.6
20%
1.09
46%
2.07 (0.87 - 3.5, n=26)
-3%
2.1 (0.69 - 4.2, n=234, last 2 years)
-4%
Load Average *
4.29
4.47
-4%
5.14
-20%
4.3
-0%
4.58
-7%
4.87 (3.56 - 7.41, n=26)
-14%
4.46 (2.1 - 8.4, n=234, last 2 years)
-4%
Load Maximum *
9.05
9.13
-1%
7.89
13%
8.6
5%
5.16
43%
9.27 (6.2 - 12.3, n=26)
-2%
7.24 (3.16 - 12.3, n=234, last 2 years)
20%

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

Autonomie
Au repos (module WiFi éteint, luminosité au minimum)
34h 48min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3 (Chrome 68)
13h 28min
En lecture de Big Buck Bunny encodé en H.264 1080p
15h 36min
Fortement sollicité (luminosité au maximum)
3h 40min
Xiaomi Poco F1
4000 mAh
Honor 10
3400 mAh
OnePlus 6
3300 mAh
Nokia 7 Plus
3800 mAh
LG G7 ThinQ
3000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3500 mAh
Huawei P20 Pro
4000 mAh
Sony Xperia XZ2 Premium
3540 mAh
Autonomie de la batterie
-23%
-6%
-22%
-8%
-23%
4%
-26%
Reader / Idle
2088
1162
-44%
1806
-14%
1703
-18%
1662
-20%
1343
-36%
1727
-17%
1347
-35%
H.264
936
662
-29%
791
-15%
706
-25%
908
-3%
674
-28%
784
-16%
520
-44%
WiFi v1.3
808
663
-18%
762
-6%
672
-17%
591
-27%
521
-36%
744
-8%
547
-32%
Load
220
216
-2%
246
12%
158
-28%
260
18%
237
8%
345
57%
235
7%

Points positifs

+ SoC rapide
+ mémoire extensible
+ 6 Go de RAM
+ bons appareils photo
+ autonomie impressionnante
+ compatibilité aptX HD
+ technologie de reconnaissance faciale honnête
+ Wifi MIMO rapide

Points négatifs

- seulement 12 mois de garantie
- qualité d'appel moyenne
- pas de NFC
- gros thermal throttling
- Amazon HD et Netflix absents
- pubs, pubs, pubs
En test : le Xiaomi Pocophone F1. Modèle de test aimablement fourni par Cyberport.
En test : le Xiaomi Pocophone F1. Modèle de test aimablement fourni par Cyberport.

Xiaomi redynamise le concept original de OnePlus, en proposant un fleuron à prix réduit. Le Xiaomi Pocophone F1 s’est bien comporté dans pratiquement tous nos tests, surtout en ce qui concerne l’autonomie, l’appareil photo et les performances.

Notre appareil de test exploite bien le Snapdragon 845, mais le Pocophone ne répond pas aux attentes de sa technologie mise en avant LiquidCool. De façon frustrante, l’OS nous a submergé de publicités, et l’absence d’Amazon HD et de Netflix pourra écarter certains clients potentiels.

Le Xiaomi Pocophone F1 possède un très bon rapport qualité / prix, surtout grâce à son puissant processeur, son autonomie impressionnante, et ses excellents appareils photo. Mais à ce prix, il faudra composer avec quelques compromis.

Le Pocophone aurait pu avoir un écran mieux calibré et plus lumineux, mais il fallait bien que Xiaomi réduise les coûts quelque part. L’écran ne sera un problème que dans la lumière directe du soleil. Il y a bien sûr de meilleurs appareils photos, mais pas à ce prix.

L’appareil possède d’autres faiblesses, dont la qualité d’appel et la réception réseaux, qui sont moins bons que chez les concurrents. Le design largement en plastique est sobre et robuste, mais cela reste subjectif.

Le Xiaomi Pocophone F1 est sans doute le meilleur candidat pour ceux qui ne veulent pas dépenser plus de 350 € pour un smartphone.

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

Xiaomi Poco F1 - 11/04/2019 v7
Daniel Schmidt

Châssis
80%
Clavier
67 / 75 → 89%
Dispositif de pointage
89%
Connectivité
52 / 70 → 74%
Poids
90%
Autonomie
90%
Écran
86%
Performances en jeu
47 / 64 → 73%
Performances dans les applications
69 / 86 → 80%
Chauffe
92%
Nuisance sonore
100%
Audio
70 / 90 → 78%
Appareil photo
55%
Moyenne
76%
82%
Smartphone - Moyenne compensée

Pricecompare

Alex Alderson
Editor of the original article: Alex Alderson - Senior Tech Writer - 3834 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2018
contact me via: @aldersonaj
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Revues et rapports de ordinateurs portatifs et smartphones, ordiphones > Critiques > Courte critique du smartphone Xiaomi Pocophone F1
Daniel Schmidt, 2018-10- 4 (Update: 2018-10- 4)