Notebookcheck

Test du Samsung Galaxy Note20 : pas toujours meilleur que le Note10

Assombri. Le Samsung Galaxy Note20 est de plus de 300 € moins cher que la version Ultra. Regarder la fiche technique montre quelques économies, mais il n'est pas évident de savoir si le Note20 plus cher vaut vraiment son titre de premium ou, plus important, s'il est intéressant de passer du Note10 au Note20.
Daniel Schmidt, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, Andrea Grüblinger (traduit par Prévots), 🇺🇸 🇩🇪 ...
Samsung Galaxy Note20 (Galaxy Note Gamme)
Processeur
Samsung Exynos 990 8 x 2 - 2.7 GHz, Exynos M5 / Cortex A-76 / Cortex-A55
Carte graphique
ARM Mali-G77 MP11
Mémoire
8192 Mo 
, LPDDR5
Écran
6.70 pouces 20:9, 2400 x 1080 pixel 393 PPP, capacitif, Prise en charge native d'une utilisation avec un stylet, Super AMOLED Plus, Corning Gorilla Glass 5, brillant: oui, HDR, 60 Hz
Disque dur
256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash, 256 Go 
, 221.6 Go libres
Connexions
1 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 1 HDMI, 1 DisplayPort, Connectique audio: USB C, 1 Lecteur d'empreintes digitales, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Capteurs: gyroscope, accéléromètre, capteur de proximité, capteur à effet Hall, capteur géomagnétique, baromètre
Réseau
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/ax = Wi-Fi 6), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM / GPRS / Edge (850, 900, 1 800, et 1 900 MHz), UMTS / HSPA+ (850, 900, 1 900, et 2 100 MHz), LTE (bandes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 32, 66, 38, 39, 40, et 41), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Taille
Hauteur x Largeur x Profondeur (en mm): 8.3 x 161.6 x 75.2
Batterie
4300 mAh Lithium-Ion
Charging
wireless charging, fast charging / Quickcharge
Système d'exploitation
Android 10
Appareil photo
Appareil photo primaire: 12 MPix (1 / 1,76", f/1,8, OIS) + 12 MP (ultra-grand-angle, 1 / 2,55", f/2,2) + 64 MP (zoom hybride, 1 / 1,72", f/2,0, OIS), Camera2-API-Level : Full
Appareil photo secondaire: 10 MPix (f/2,2)
Fonctionnalités additionnelles
Haut-parleurs: stéréos, Clavier: virtuel, 24 Mois Garantie, DRM Widevine L1, certifié IP68, fanless, waterproof
Poids
192 g
Prix
925 euros
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

, , , , , ,
relation de la recherche.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 

Appareils du comparatif

Note
Date
Modèle
Poids
Drive
Taille
Résolution
Best Price
88 %
10/20
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11
192 g256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.70"2400x1080
86 %
04/20
Oppo Find X2 Pro
SD 865, Adreno 650
202 g512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.70"3168x1440
88 %
05/20
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
SD 865, Adreno 650
208 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.67"2340x1080
88 %
05/20
OnePlus 8 Pro
SD 865, Adreno 650
199 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.78"3168x1440
89 %
04/20
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16
198 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.53"2400x1176
87 %
11/19
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU
226 g64 GB SSD6.50"2688x1242
89 %
02/21
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra
Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11
208 g256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash6.90"3088x1440

Comparaison des tailles

165.2 mm 74.4 mm 9.5 mm 202 g165.3 mm 74.3 mm 8.5 mm 199 g164.8 mm 77.2 mm 8.1 mm 208 g162.6 mm 74.8 mm 8.96 mm 208 g161.6 mm 75.2 mm 8.3 mm 192 g158.1 mm 73.1 mm 8.8 mm 198 g158 mm 77.8 mm 8.1 mm 226 g
Networking
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
Mali-G76 MP16, Kirin 990, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
966 (923min - 995max) MBit/s ∼100% +16%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
Mali-G76 MP16, Kirin 990, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
637 (584min - 715max) MBit/s ∼66% -24%
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Mali-G77 MP11, Exynos 990, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
833 (418min - 883max) MBit/s ∼86%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 865, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
816 (403min - 832max) MBit/s ∼84% -2%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
A13 Bionic GPU, A13 Bionic, 64 GB SSD
589 (461min - 625max) MBit/s ∼61% -29%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 865, 512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
509 (264min - 571max) MBit/s ∼53% -39%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.59 - 1599, n=303, last 2 years)
415 MBit/s ∼43% -50%
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
Mali-G76 MP16, Kirin 990, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
1010 (912min - 1092max) MBit/s ∼100% +17%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
Mali-G76 MP16, Kirin 990, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
533 (468min - 602max) MBit/s ∼53% -38%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 865, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
883 (834min - 919max) MBit/s ∼87% +2%
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Mali-G77 MP11, Exynos 990, 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash
864 (802min - 879max) MBit/s ∼86%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Adreno 650, SD 865, 512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
754 (346min - 881max) MBit/s ∼75% -13%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
A13 Bionic GPU, A13 Bionic, 64 GB SSD
580 (550min - 597max) MBit/s ∼57% -33%
Average of class Smartphone
  (15.5 - 1414, n=303, last 2 years)
419 MBit/s ∼41% -52%
04590135180225270315360405450495540585630675720765810855844857869865866868873842802868874863870879843862863872869857869855869876876879865855879868844857869865866868873842802868874863870879843862863872869857869855869876876879865855879868418862852822863823825829841883861818752816828848843815827845777805845844841850828830847842Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø863 (802-879)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø819 (418-883)

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.

WeitwinkelWeitwinkelZoom (5-fach)UltraweitwinkelLow-Light
Cliquer pour charger les images
ColorChecker
10.7 ∆E
5.4 ∆E
8 ∆E
14.3 ∆E
6.4 ∆E
2.2 ∆E
4.9 ∆E
7.2 ∆E
7.3 ∆E
4.6 ∆E
4.8 ∆E
6.8 ∆E
5.5 ∆E
10.5 ∆E
8.5 ∆E
3 ∆E
3.9 ∆E
8.3 ∆E
7.3 ∆E
2.7 ∆E
5.2 ∆E
5.4 ∆E
1.5 ∆E
4.2 ∆E
ColorChecker Samsung Galaxy Note20: 6.19 ∆E min: 1.45 - max: 14.34 ∆E
ColorChecker
28.4 ∆E
44.8 ∆E
34.7 ∆E
32.7 ∆E
38.9 ∆E
54.1 ∆E
44.3 ∆E
30.3 ∆E
33.4 ∆E
26.2 ∆E
55.4 ∆E
55.7 ∆E
28.5 ∆E
41 ∆E
29.5 ∆E
58.1 ∆E
35.5 ∆E
38.5 ∆E
54.5 ∆E
54.6 ∆E
43.5 ∆E
33.7 ∆E
22.8 ∆E
12.9 ∆E
ColorChecker Samsung Galaxy Note20: 38.83 ∆E min: 12.89 - max: 58.06 ∆E
614
cd/m²
618
cd/m²
634
cd/m²
607
cd/m²
610
cd/m²
637
cd/m²
615
cd/m²
616
cd/m²
634
cd/m²
Homogénéité de la luminosité
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 637 cd/m² Moyenne: 620.6 cd/m² Minimum: 1.52 cd/m²
Homogénéité de la luminosité: 95 %
Valeur mesurée au centre, sur batterie: 610 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Valeurs des noirs: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.4 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.6
ΔE Greyscale 2.8 | 0.64-98 Ø5.8
99.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.09
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Super AMOLED Plus, 2400x1080, 6.70
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Dynamic AMOLED, 2280x1080, 6.30
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra
Dynamic AMOLED, 3088x1440, 6.90
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
OLED, 2688x1242, 6.50
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
OLED, 2400x1176, 6.53
OnePlus 8 Pro
AMOLED, 3168x1440, 6.78
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.67
Oppo Find X2 Pro
AMOLED, 3168x1440, 6.70
Screen
-2%
-22%
26%
-5%
42%
36%
-38%
Brightness middle
610
764
25%
860
41%
790
30%
592
-3%
796
30%
753
23%
778
28%
Brightness
621
757
22%
878
41%
790
27%
605
-3%
779
25%
762
23%
775
25%
Brightness Distribution
95
91
-4%
96
1%
97
2%
96
1%
94
-1%
96
1%
99
4%
Black Level *
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
2.4
2.66
-11%
4.5
-88%
1.4
42%
2.5
-4%
0.68
72%
0.9
62%
4.4
-83%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
4.3
5.65
-31%
10.4
-142%
3.4
21%
5.5
-28%
1.55
64%
1.6
63%
8.7
-102%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
2.8
3.2
-14%
2.4
14%
1.9
32%
2.6
7%
1.1
61%
1.5
46%
5.6
-100%
Gamma
2.09 105%
2.073 106%
2 110%
2.23 99%
2.16 102%
2.237 98%
2.24 98%
2.26 97%
CCT
6368 102%
6326 103%
6466 101%
6466 101%
6173 105%
6310 103%
6415 101%
7250 90%

* ... 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 250 Hz ≤ 99 Niveau de luminosité

Le rétroéclairage de l'écran scintille à la fréquence de 250 Hz (certainement du fait de l'utilisation d'une MDI - Modulation de largeur d'impulsion) à un niveau de luminosité inférieur ou égal à 99 % . Aucun scintillement ne devrait être perceptible au-dessus de cette valeur.

La fréquence de rafraîchissement de 250 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 14825 (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
3.2 ms ... hausse ↗ et chute ↘ combinées↗ 2 ms hausse
↘ 1.2 ms chute
L'écran montre de très faibles temps de réponse, parfait pour le jeu.
En comparaison, tous les appareils testés affichent entre 0.8 (minimum) et 240 (maximum) ms. » 3 % des appareils testés affichent de meilleures performances.
Cela signifie que les latences relevées sont meilleures que la moyenne (24 ms) de tous les appareils testés.
       Temps de réponse gris 50% à gris 80%
9.6 ms ... hausse ↗ et chute ↘ combinées↗ 4.8 ms hausse
↘ 4.8 ms chute
L'écran montre de faibles temps de réponse, un bon écran pour jouer.
En comparaison, tous les appareils testés affichent entre 0.8 (minimum) et 636 (maximum) ms. » 10 % des appareils testés affichent de meilleures performances.
Cela signifie que les latences relevées sont meilleures que la moyenne (38.1 ms) de tous les appareils testés.
Geekbench 5.3
64 Bit Single-Core Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
917 Points ∼69%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
911 Points ∼69% -1%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
906 Points ∼68% -1%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
909 Points ∼69% -1%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
781 Points ∼59% -15%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
1326 Points ∼100% +45%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (903 - 944, n=5)
929 Points ∼70% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (58 - 1604, n=234, last 2 years)
566 Points ∼43% -38%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
2766 Points ∼80%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
3360 Points ∼97% +21%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
3338 Points ∼96% +21%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
3318 Points ∼95% +20%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
3062 Points ∼88% +11%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
3476 Points ∼100% +26%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (2731 - 2899, n=5)
2800 Points ∼81% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (248 - 4455, n=234, last 2 years)
1940 Points ∼56% -30%
Vulkan Score 5.3 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
4667 Points ∼99%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (4667 - 4789, n=2)
4728 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (72 - 6524, n=124, last 2 years)
2053 Points ∼43% -56%
OpenCL Score 5.3 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
5364 Points ∼98%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (5364 - 5532, n=2)
5448 Points ∼100% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (255 - 7514, n=128, last 2 years)
2141 Points ∼39% -60%
Geekbench 4.1 - 4.4
64 Bit Single-Core Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
4278 Points ∼88%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
4261 Points ∼87%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
3898 Points ∼80%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (4791 - 4965, n=2)
4878 Points ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (412 - 5099, n=69, last 2 years)
2615 Points ∼54%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
13279 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
13186 Points ∼99%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
12280 Points ∼92%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (12557 - 12561, n=2)
12559 Points ∼95%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1163 - 14895, n=69, last 2 years)
7940 Points ∼60%
Compute RenderScript Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9491 Points ∼78%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
9443 Points ∼77%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
12228 Points ∼100%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
 
8648 Points ∼71%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2166 - 12228, n=60, last 2 years)
6821 Points ∼56%
PCMark for Android
Work performance score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
13627 Points ∼95%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
13360 Points ∼93% -2%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
13142 Points ∼91% -4%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
13471 Points ∼94% -1%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
13947 Points ∼97% +2%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (13627 - 14760, n=5)
14391 Points ∼100% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2689 - 19989, n=223, last 2 years)
9982 Points ∼69% -27%
Work 2.0 performance score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
10008 Points ∼88%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11387 Points ∼100% +14%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
10952 Points ∼96% +9%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11153 Points ∼98% +11%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
10322 Points ∼91% +3%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (10008 - 11784, n=5)
10612 Points ∼93% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (82 - 15299, n=267, last 2 years)
7878 Points ∼69% -21%
3DMark
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
68943 Points ∼71%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
75632 Points ∼78% +10%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
82937 Points ∼86% +20%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
82562 Points ∼85% +20%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
64626 Points ∼67% -6%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
96826 Points ∼100% +40%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (41415 - 68943, n=4)
61100 Points ∼63% -11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2920 - 117606, n=207, last 2 years)
40247 Points ∼42% -42%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
87223 Points ∼42%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
145567 Points ∼71% +67%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
150281 Points ∼73% +72%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
149017 Points ∼72% +71%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
75073 Points ∼36% -14%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
206190 Points ∼100% +136%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (48476 - 87223, n=4)
74951 Points ∼36% -14%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2177 - 224130, n=207, last 2 years)
58049 Points ∼28% -33%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
39771 Points ∼92%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
28147 Points ∼65% -29%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
32384 Points ∼75% -19%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
32240 Points ∼74% -19%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
43459 Points ∼100% +9%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
33898 Points ∼78% -15%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (27431 - 42135, n=4)
37265 Points ∼86% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (8324 - 59268, n=207, last 2 years)
23323 Points ∼54% -41%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
8097 Points ∼89%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8866 Points ∼97% +9%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
9123 Points ∼100% +13%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8811 Points ∼97% +9%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6815 Points ∼75% -16%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
7893 Points ∼87% -3%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (5646 - 8097, n=5)
6920 Points ∼76% -15%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 11256, n=260, last 2 years)
3369 Points ∼37% -58%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
11272 Points ∼91%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11458 Points ∼92% +2%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
12394 Points ∼100% +10%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11371 Points ∼92% +1%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
7671 Points ∼62% -32%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
11302 Points ∼91% 0%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (6388 - 11488, n=5)
9004 Points ∼73% -20%
Average of class Smartphone
  (54 - 16670, n=260, last 2 years)
3943 Points ∼32% -65%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
4077 Points ∼81%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5054 Points ∼100% +24%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
4729 Points ∼94% +16%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
4928 Points ∼98% +21%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4900 Points ∼97% +20%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
3839 Points ∼76% -6%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (3846 - 4124, n=5)
3990 Points ∼79% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (607 - 5301, n=260, last 2 years)
2756 Points ∼55% -32%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
8485 Points ∼87%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9616 Points ∼98% +13%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
8823 Points ∼90% +4%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9807 Points ∼100% +16%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
7098 Points ∼72% -16%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (7385 - 8485, n=5)
7798 Points ∼80% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (149 - 11895, n=276, last 2 years)
3948 Points ∼40% -53%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
11868 Points ∼93%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
12573 Points ∼99% +6%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
12694 Points ∼100% +7%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
12665 Points ∼100% +7%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
7970 Points ∼63% -33%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (9470 - 11868, n=5)
10329 Points ∼81% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (122 - 22052, n=276, last 2 years)
4986 Points ∼39% -58%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
4247 Points ∼78%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5209 Points ∼95% +23%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
4283 Points ∼78% +1%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5480 Points ∼100% +29%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
5133 Points ∼94% +21%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (3935 - 4455, n=5)
4240 Points ∼77% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (620 - 5784, n=274, last 2 years)
2908 Points ∼53% -32%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
6544 Points ∼91%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
7012 Points ∼98% +7%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
7157 Points ∼100% +9%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
7117 Points ∼99% +9%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6048 Points ∼85% -8%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
5471 Points ∼76% -16%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (6544 - 6896, n=5)
6733 Points ∼94% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (78 - 9138, n=258, last 2 years)
2629 Points ∼37% -60%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
8005 Points ∼96%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8045 Points ∼97% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
8299 Points ∼100% +4%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8106 Points ∼98% +1%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6478 Points ∼78% -19%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
6088 Points ∼73% -24%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (8005 - 8469, n=5)
8260 Points ∼100% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (62 - 11573, n=258, last 2 years)
2786 Points ∼34% -65%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
3993 Points ∼80%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
4582 Points ∼92% +15%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
4895 Points ∼98% +23%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
4987 Points ∼100% +25%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4909 Points ∼98% +23%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
4038 Points ∼81% +1%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (3963 - 4267, n=5)
4091 Points ∼82% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5318, n=258, last 2 years)
2802 Points ∼56% -30%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
7076 Points ∼87%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
7982 Points ∼98% +13%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
7986 Points ∼98% +13%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8111 Points ∼100% +15%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6382 Points ∼79% -10%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (6638 - 7459, n=5)
7083 Points ∼87% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (91 - 9839, n=274, last 2 years)
3193 Points ∼39% -55%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
870 Points ∼9%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9345 Points ∼100% +974%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
9356 Points ∼100% +975%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9379 Points ∼100% +978%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6657 Points ∼71% +665%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (870 - 9190, n=5)
7112 Points ∼76% +717%
Average of class Smartphone
  (73 - 12914, n=274, last 2 years)
3570 Points ∼38% +310%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
4143 Points ∼74%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5187 Points ∼93% +25%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
5277 Points ∼95% +27%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5506 Points ∼99% +33%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
5576 Points ∼100% +35%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (4063 - 4495, n=5)
4284 Points ∼77% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (620 - 5793, n=274, last 2 years)
2959 Points ∼53% -29%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
5042 Points ∼76%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
6444 Points ∼97% +28%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
6578 Points ∼99% +30%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
6618 Points ∼100% +31%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
5570 Points ∼84% +10%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (5042 - 6355, n=5)
5599 Points ∼85% +11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (426 - 6977, n=215, last 2 years)
2636 Points ∼40% -48%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
6136 Points ∼74%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8076 Points ∼98% +32%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
8173 Points ∼99% +33%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
8279 Points ∼100% +35%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6369 Points ∼77% +4%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (6136 - 8783, n=5)
7254 Points ∼88% +18%
Average of class Smartphone
  (349 - 11259, n=215, last 2 years)
2959 Points ∼36% -52%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
3104 Points ∼80%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
3843 Points ∼99% +24%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
3830 Points ∼99% +23%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
3888 Points ∼100% +25%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
3870 Points ∼100% +25%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (3104 - 3230, n=5)
3154 Points ∼81% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1786 - 4061, n=215, last 2 years)
2651 Points ∼68% -15%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
60 fps ∼67%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
60 fps ∼67% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
90 fps ∼100% +50%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
60 fps ∼67% 0%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
60 fps ∼67% 0%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
59 fps ∼66% -2%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (60 - 119, n=5)
81.8 fps ∼91% +36%
Average of class Smartphone
  (8.2 - 143, n=215, last 2 years)
57 fps ∼63% -5%
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
191 fps ∼67%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
202 fps ∼70% +6%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
203 fps ∼71% +6%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
206 fps ∼72% +8%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
152 fps ∼53% -20%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
287 fps ∼100% +50%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (145 - 200, n=5)
187 fps ∼65% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4.3 - 322, n=215, last 2 years)
106 fps ∼37% -45%
GFXBench 3.0
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
60 fps ∼68%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
58 fps ∼66% -3%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
88 fps ∼100% +47%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
60 fps ∼68% 0%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
60 fps ∼68% 0%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
60 fps ∼68% 0%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (59 - 90, n=5)
65.8 fps ∼75% +10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4.5 - 120, n=213, last 2 years)
45 fps ∼51% -25%
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
114 fps ∼73%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
123 fps ∼78% +8%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
122 fps ∼78% +7%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
126 fps ∼80% +11%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
106 fps ∼68% -7%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
157 fps ∼100% +38%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (96 - 126, n=5)
109 fps ∼69% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 180, n=214, last 2 years)
62 fps ∼39% -46%
GFXBench 3.1
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
58 fps ∼75%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
45 fps ∼58% -22%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
77 fps ∼100% +33%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
60 fps ∼78% +3%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
73 fps ∼95% +26%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
60 fps ∼78% +3%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (58 - 61, n=5)
59 fps ∼77% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (3.1 - 106, n=212, last 2 years)
35.4 fps ∼46% -39%
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
80 fps ∼80%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
86 fps ∼86% +8%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
86 fps ∼86% +8%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
88 fps ∼88% +10%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
56 fps ∼56% -30%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
100 fps ∼100% +25%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (65 - 85, n=5)
77.4 fps ∼77% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 121, n=212, last 2 years)
42.5 fps ∼43% -47%
GFXBench
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
44 fps ∼92%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
26 fps ∼54% -41%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
45 fps ∼94% +2%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
45 fps ∼94% +2%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
34 fps ∼71% -23%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
48 fps ∼100% +9%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (34 - 45, n=5)
42 fps ∼88% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.5 - 61, n=211, last 2 years)
22.2 fps ∼46% -50%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
49 fps ∼78%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
51 fps ∼81% +4%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
50 fps ∼79% +2%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
51 fps ∼81% +4%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
41 fps ∼65% -16%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
63 fps ∼100% +29%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (38 - 51, n=5)
47.6 fps ∼76% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.8 - 75, n=211, last 2 years)
25.5 fps ∼40% -48%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
52 fps ∼90%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
28 fps ∼48% -46%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
47 fps ∼81% -10%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
48 fps ∼83% -8%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
40 fps ∼69% -23%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
58 fps ∼100% +12%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (49 - 52, n=5)
50.8 fps ∼88% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.5 - 73, n=280, last 2 years)
22.2 fps ∼38% -57%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
56 fps ∼75%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
53 fps ∼71% -5%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
54 (20min) fps ∼72% -4%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
54 fps ∼72% -4%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
49 fps ∼65% -12%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
75 fps ∼100% +34%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (43 - 58, n=5)
53.4 fps ∼71% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.95 - 257, n=279, last 2 years)
25.6 fps ∼34% -54%
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
27 fps ∼59%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
18 fps ∼39% -33%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
30 fps ∼65% +11%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
31 fps ∼67% +15%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
26 fps ∼57% -4%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
46 fps ∼100% +70%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (22 - 34, n=5)
29.8 fps ∼65% +10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 60, n=280, last 2 years)
14.8 fps ∼32% -45%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
23 fps ∼79%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
20 fps ∼69% -13%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
20 fps ∼69% -13%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
20 fps ∼69% -13%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
19 fps ∼66% -17%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
29 fps ∼100% +26%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (20 - 23, n=5)
21.8 fps ∼75% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.35 - 101, n=279, last 2 years)
10.1 fps ∼35% -56%
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
522516 Points ∼87%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
599843 Points ∼100% +15%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
595466 Points ∼99% +14%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
585231 Points ∼98% +12%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
483224 Points ∼81% -8%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
510245 Points ∼85% -2%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (296746 - 527820, n=5)
469996 Points ∼78% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53335 - 727247, n=186, last 2 years)
331491 Points ∼55% -37%
Basemark GPU 1.1
1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
33.9 (9.36min - 74.72max) fps ∼47%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (71.5 - 71.6, n=2)
71.5 fps ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7.44 - 71.6, n=14, last 2 years)
31.1 fps ∼43%
Vulkan Medium Native (Classer selon les valeurs)
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
31.12 (11.09min - 63.1max) fps ∼59%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (42.3 - 63, n=2)
52.7 fps ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (6.65 - 63, n=14, last 2 years)
24.7 fps ∼47%
1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
29.22 (4.07min - 95.16max) fps ∼34%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (84.1 - 85.6, n=2)
84.8 fps ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7.73 - 85.6, n=18, last 2 years)
27.2 fps ∼32%
VRMark - Amber Room (Classer selon les valeurs)
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
4988 Score ∼70%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
7156 Score ∼100%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4997 Score ∼70%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (4607 - 4957, n=3)
4783 Score ∼67%
Average of class Smartphone
  (421 - 7649, n=57, last 2 years)
3256 Score ∼46%
BaseMark OS II
Overall (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
4826 Points ∼79%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5540 Points ∼91% +15%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
6072 Points ∼100% +26%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
5993 Points ∼99% +24%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
5389 Points ∼89% +12%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
5607 Points ∼92% +16%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (4764 - 4915, n=5)
4815 Points ∼79% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (323 - 6959, n=198, last 2 years)
3625 Points ∼60% -25%
System (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
9421 Points ∼66%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
9555 Points ∼67% +1%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
10002 Points ∼70% +6%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
10058 Points ∼71% +7%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
9309 Points ∼66% -1%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
14189 Points ∼100% +51%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (8843 - 9478, n=5)
9209 Points ∼65% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1160 - 14189, n=198, last 2 years)
6635 Points ∼47% -30%
Memory (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
3829 Points ∼48%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
6350 Points ∼80% +66%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
7945 Points ∼100% +107%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
7240 Points ∼91% +89%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6130 Points ∼77% +60%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
2350 Points ∼30% -39%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (3775 - 4497, n=5)
4037 Points ∼51% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (522 - 9044, n=198, last 2 years)
4241 Points ∼53% +11%
Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
10789 Points ∼63%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11496 Points ∼68% +7%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
11567 Points ∼68% +7%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
11842 Points ∼70% +10%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
10112 Points ∼59% -6%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
16996 Points ∼100% +58%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (10646 - 10803, n=5)
10744 Points ∼63% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (349 - 16996, n=198, last 2 years)
5613 Points ∼33% -48%
Web (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Note20
Samsung Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11, 8192
1394 Points ∼80%
Oppo Find X2 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
1351 Points ∼77% -3%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 8192
1514 Points ∼87% +9%
OnePlus 8 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865, Adreno 650, 12288
1496 Points ∼86% +7%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
1462 Points ∼84% +5%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
Apple A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU, 4096
1745 Points ∼100% +25%
Average Samsung Exynos 990
  (1270 - 1439, n=5)
1351 Points ∼77% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (10 - 2169, n=198, last 2 years)
1272 Points ∼73% -9%
Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1)
129.096 Points ∼100% +130%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
65.88 Points ∼51% +17%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)
64.958 Points ∼50% +16%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)
64.567 Points ∼50% +15%
OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80)
63.374 Points ∼49% +13%
Samsung Galaxy Note20 (Samsung Browser 12.1)
56.102 Points ∼43%
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (50.6 - 56.8, n=5)
53.8 Points ∼42% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (12.4 - 161, n=184, last 2 years)
50 Points ∼39% -11%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1)
301.91 Points ∼100% +217%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
115.49 Points ∼38% +21%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)
115.43 Points ∼38% +21%
OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80)
114.78 Points ∼38% +21%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)
114.65 Points ∼38% +20%
Samsung Galaxy Note20 (Samsung Browser 12.1)
95.185 Points ∼32%
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (89.3 - 96.2, n=5)
92.8 Points ∼31% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 375, n=192, last 2 years)
89.7 Points ∼30% -6%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1)
153 runs/min ∼100% +138%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
74.1 runs/min ∼48% +15%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)
71 runs/min ∼46% +10%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)
68.6 runs/min ∼45% +7%
OnePlus 8 Pro (Chome 80)
67.7 runs/min ∼44% +5%
Samsung Galaxy Note20 (Samsung Browser 12.1)
64.4 runs/min ∼42%
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (50.8 - 64.4, n=4)
60.4 runs/min ∼39% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (9 - 196, n=165, last 2 years)
50.7 runs/min ∼33% -21%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1)
181 Points ∼100% +79%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
119 Points ∼66% +18%
OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80)
104 Points ∼57% +3%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)
101 Points ∼56% 0%
Samsung Galaxy Note20 (Samsung Browser 12.1)
101 Points ∼56%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)
100 Points ∼55% -1%
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (86 - 102, n=5)
94.4 Points ∼52% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (20 - 194, n=202, last 2 years)
78 Points ∼43% -23%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1)
49388 Points ∼100% +147%
OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80)
23678 Points ∼48% +18%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
23568 Points ∼48% +18%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)
22976 Points ∼47% +15%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)
22834 Points ∼46% +14%
Samsung Galaxy Note20 (Samsung Browser 12.1)
20022 Points ∼41%
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (18094 - 20022, n=5)
19019 Points ∼39% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (1986 - 58632, n=209, last 2 years)
17325 Points ∼35% -13%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (460 - 29635, n=211, last 2 years)
3999 ms * ∼100% -74%
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (2294 - 2511, n=5)
2387 ms * ∼60% -4%
Samsung Galaxy Note20 (Samsung Browser 12.1)
2293.6 ms * ∼57%
Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80)
2043.6 ms * ∼51% +11%
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81)
2021.2 ms * ∼51% +12%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
1962.5 ms * ∼49% +14%
OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80)
1944.7 ms * ∼49% +15%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1)
570.9 ms * ∼14% +75%

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

Samsung Galaxy Note20Samsung Galaxy Note10Oppo Find X2 ProXiaomi Mi 10 ProOnePlus 8 ProHuawei Mate 30 ProAverage 256 GB UFS 3.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-15%
-7%
10%
-6%
-6%
10%
-49%
Sequential Read 256KB
1682.85
1478.3
-12%
1605.6
-5%
1738.65
3%
1627.3
-3%
1780.5
6%
1751 (1330 - 2037, n=18)
4%
752 (41.9 - 2037, n=285, last 2 years)
-55%
Sequential Write 256KB
780.17
590.3
-24%
728.72
-7%
750.44
-4%
730.4
-6%
401.79
-48%
788 (671 - 1321, n=18)
1%
327 (11.9 - 1321, n=285, last 2 years)
-58%
Random Read 4KB
207.64
194.2
-6%
202.63
-2%
264.9
28%
208.3
0%
226.38
9%
255 (187 - 325, n=18)
23%
134 (13.5 - 325, n=285, last 2 years)
-35%
Random Write 4KB
233.79
191.9
-18%
204.98
-12%
258.54
11%
197.7
-15%
259.21
11%
263 (205 - 330, n=18)
12%
120 (4.97 - 330, n=285, last 2 years)
-49%
05101520253035404550556038394139404040404040404040404040404040403940404040404040393940404040404039404040394139404040404039414040404039404040403940404040404040404040404040384040404040404040404040404040404040404040393427404040394041394040403939404040404040404040394140404040404040394040404040394140404040404040404040394040404040404040404039404039404039404040404040404040404040404040404039404040404040404040404039404040394040404040394140394040404040404039413941394040404040394039414040393940404040394040403941394140404040404040403940404040404040394140404039404039413940404040404040404040404038404040403940413940404040394140404040403940404040404040404040404040403839413940404040404040404040404040404040394040404040404039394040404040403940404039413940404040403941404040403940404040394040404040404040404040404038404040404040404040404040404040404040404039342740404039404139404040393940404040404040404039414040404040404039404040404039414040404040404040404039404040404040404040403940403940403940404040404040404040404040404040403940404040404040404040403940404039404040404039414039404040404040403941394139404040404039403941404039394040404039404040394139414040404040404040394040404040404039414040403940403941394040404040404040404040403840404040394041394040404039414040404040394040404040404040404040404040595959606060606060606060606160606060606059605659606060605958605957606060606060606060606060596059606059596059585959606058606060606059606059586057576060596059585960595955596058606060596058606060566059605960595758616060605560606059595456606060476060616060606060605960596060596060606060606057576058585958606059596060606060585955585959546058576058605960585959606059606058585960595957585757605652585544576061596060605958606058605958595760595860575560605959595960586060606059606060606060606057595959605957605859605860605858606056555860586058606058606059616057565457575557515758595960595556595960545458606060595958605958545857605960Tooltip
; PUBG Mobile; 1.0.0: Ø39.8 (27-41)
; Armajet; 1.15.1: Ø58.9 (44-61)
 35.5 °C34.7 °C31.2 °C 
 34.7 °C34.9 °C31.2 °C 
 34.2 °C33 °C29.4 °C 
Maximum: 35.5 °C
Moyenne: 33.2 °C
29 °C32.2 °C31.6 °C
28.1 °C31.5 °C32.6 °C
27.7 °C31.5 °C31.3 °C
Maximum: 32.6 °C
Moyenne: 30.6 °C
Alimentation (valeur maximale)  24.5 °C | Température ambiante de la pièce 20 °C | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 33.2 °C / 92 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 35.5 °C / 96 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 32.6 °C / 91 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 25.9 °C / 79 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2039.537.92527.627.43120.725.3402326.65033.533.36326.823.68020.819.51002227.112518.238.516017.849.720014.750.925015.155.331513.46040012.262.650012.865.963011.568.680011.671.910001276.3125011.476.7160011.377.4200011.977.8250012.476.7315012.574.9400013.177.9500013.574.7630013.174.3800013.976.21000013.177.2125001478.51600013.767.7SPL24.887.9N0.673.4median 13.1median 74.3Delta1.59.736.923.32923.721.927.4222229.935.3222819.330.716.331.31440.316.956.114.954.614.158.61066.71165.711.766.710.969.411.972.31176.410.276.811.477.812.87912.97912.578.41378.513.175.813.475.315.776.113.573.51470.313.763.924.888.80.677.4median 13median 72.31.18.3hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseSamsung Galaxy Note20Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Samsung Galaxy Note20 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.9% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 3% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 95% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 22% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 73% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (1.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (14.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 1% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 97% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 16% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 79% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Consommation énergétique
Éteint/en veilledarklight 0.02 / 0.36 Watts
Au reposdarkmidlight 0.92 / 1.5 / 1.54 Watts
Fortement sollicité midlight 5.49 / 9.99 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.
Samsung Galaxy Note20
4300 mAh
Oppo Find X2 Pro
4260 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
4500 mAh
OnePlus 8 Pro
4510 mAh
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
4500 mAh
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
3969 mAh
Average Samsung Exynos 990
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-67%
23%
-78%
7%
-22%
-3%
-3%
Idle Minimum *
0.92
1.47
-60%
0.61
34%
2.2
-139%
0.87
5%
0.92
-0%
0.846 (0.65 - 1, n=5)
8%
0.934 (0.37 - 2.5, n=234, last 2 years)
-2%
Idle Average *
1.5
3.43
-129%
1.19
21%
3.3
-120%
1.75
-17%
2.9
-93%
1.534 (1.06 - 1.91, n=5)
-2%
1.843 (0.65 - 3.94, n=234, last 2 years)
-23%
Idle Maximum *
1.54
3.52
-129%
1.23
20%
3.7
-140%
1.83
-19%
2.94
-91%
1.858 (1.49 - 2.3, n=5)
-21%
2.1 (0.69 - 4.2, n=234, last 2 years)
-36%
Load Average *
5.49
6.2
-13%
4.18
24%
5.9
-7%
3.85
30%
3.65
34%
5.14 (4.72 - 5.8, n=5)
6%
4.46 (2.1 - 8.4, n=234, last 2 years)
19%
Load Maximum *
9.99
10.63
-6%
8.53
15%
8.3
17%
6.64
34%
6.18
38%
10.7 (9.99 - 11.8, n=5)
-7%
7.24 (3.16 - 12.3, n=234, last 2 years)
28%

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

Autonomie
Au repos (module WiFi éteint, luminosité au minimum)
34h 27min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3 (Samsung Browser 12.1)
9h 49min
En lecture de Big Buck Bunny encodé en H.264 1080p
18h 43min
Fortement sollicité (luminosité au maximum)
5h 26min
Samsung Galaxy Note20
4300 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Note10
3500 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra
4500 mAh
Oppo Find X2 Pro
4260 mAh
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro
4500 mAh
OnePlus 8 Pro
4510 mAh
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
4500 mAh
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
3969 mAh
Autonomie de la batterie
-22%
-10%
11%
-1%
10%
3%
32%
Reader / Idle
2067
1392
-33%
1223
-41%
2133
3%
2103
2%
2174
5%
2618
27%
H.264
1123
803
-28%
993
-12%
973
-13%
1023
-9%
1098
-2%
1346
20%
WiFi v1.3
589
583
-1%
644
9%
654
11%
865
47%
923
57%
823
40%
909
54%
Load
326
246
-25%
338
4%
198
-39%
296
-9%
219
-33%
408
25%

Points positifs

+ fidélité des couleurs
+ S-Pen
+ taille et rapidité du stockage UFS 3.1
+ appareils photo
+ haut-parleurs

Points négatifs

- 5G en option
- absence de micro SD
- luminosité de l'écran par rapport au prédécesseur
- dalle 60 Hz
- absence d'aptX HD et d'Adaptive aptX

Verdict – Meilleur que sa réputation

En test : le Samsung Galaxy Note20 (SM-N980F). Modèle de test fourni par Samsung Allemagne.
En test : le Samsung Galaxy Note20 (SM-N980F). Modèle de test fourni par Samsung Allemagne.

En regardant la fiche technique et en comparant le Note20 et le Note20 Ultra, le premier semble devoir faire quelques compromis. Par exemple il ne possède pas de 5G dans sa version la moins chère, et l'écran 60 Hz n'est pas digne de cette classe. Le fabricant coréen va même encore plus loin, et régresse au regard de la technologie d'écran par rapport au prédécesseur. Sans surprise, la réaction du geek de service est comprise quelque par entre la curiosité et la crise cardiaque plutôt sévère. La cerise sur le gâteau pour l'Europe est que Samsung continue à utiliser son SoC maison plus lent pour les appareils vendus sur le continent, bien que les SoC Qualcomm actuels aient encore plus creusés l'écarts...

Le Samsung Galaxy Note20 n'a pas certaines fonctionnalités que nous attendions sur un smartphone haut de gamme. Néanmoins, le concept reste puissant et réussi.

Pour prendre de la hauteur, le Galaxy Note20 reste un fleuron puissant, avec un prix de moins de 1 000 $, et un prix usuel largement inférieur. Ceux qui voudraient un smartphone puissant avec S-Pen et la garantie de mises à jour sur le long terme et un prix pas trop élevé, pourraient trouver que le Note20 est l'appareil le plus adapté à leur besoin. L'écran plat et la bosse de l'appareil photo plus petite rend le travail avec le S-Pen bien plus pratique, et si vous n'avez jamais eu de téléphone 60 Hz, alors cela ne vous gênera pas. Le seul vrai défaut de l'appareil est l'écran moins lumineux que sur l'écran plus sombre, mais avec l'avantage de couleur plus fidèles que sur la version Ultra.

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

Download your licensed rating image as SVG / PNG

Samsung Galaxy Note20 - 09/29/2020 v7
Daniel Schmidt

Châssis