Notebookcheck

Test du Samsung Galaxy Z Flip : le meilleur des smartphones pliables

Flip flip flip hourra ! Avec le Galaxy Z Flip, Samsung lance un deuxième smartphone pliable, avec un concept similaire à celui du Razr. Le prix est également élevé, mais le smartphone Samsung promet une configuration plus musclée, sur le papier. Dans ce test, nous allons voir si le Galaxy Z Flip est capable de convaincre au quotidien, ou s’il n’est qu’un gadget un peu cher.
Daniel Schmidt, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, Felicitas Krohn (traduit par Prévots), 🇺🇸 🇩🇪 ...
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip (Galaxy Z Gamme)
Processeur
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus 8 x - 3 GHz, Cortex-A76 / A55 (Kryo 485)
Carte graphique
Mémoire
8192 Mo 
, LPDDR4x
Écran
6.70 pouces 22:9, 2636 x 1080 pixel 425 PPP, capacitif, Dynamic AMOLED, écran Infinity Flex O, pliable ; écran extérieur : 1,1", 112 x 300, Super AMOLED, brillant: oui, HDR, 60 Hz
Disque dur
256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash, 256 Go 
, 223.1 Go libres
Connexions
1 USB 2.0, Connectique audio: USB C, 1 Lecteur d'empreintes digitales, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Capteurs: capteur de proximité, accéléromètre, capteur de position, orientation sensor, G sensor, magnétomètre, baromètre, USB C
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 et 1 900 MHz), UMTS / HSPA+ (bandes 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 34 et 39), LTE Cat. 16 (bandes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 66, 34, 38, 39, 40 et 41), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Taille
Hauteur x Largeur x Profondeur (en mm): 7.2 x 167.3 x 73.6
Batterie
12.9 Wh, 3300 mAh Lithium-Polymère, 2 cellules : (cellule 1 : 9,15 Wh, 2370 mAh, 4,43 V ; cellule 2 : 3,474 Wh, 900 mAh, 3,86 V)
Charging
wireless charging, fast charging / Quickcharge
Système d'exploitation
Android 10
Appareil photo
Appareil photo primaire: 12 MPix (grand-angle, f/1,8, 27 mm, 1 / 2,55", 1,4 µm) + 12 MP (ultra grand-angle, f/2,2, 12 mm, 1,12 µm) ; API Camera2 : niveau 3
Appareil photo secondaire: 10 MPix (f/2,4, 26 mm, 1,22 µm)
Fonctionnalités additionnelles
Haut-parleurs: mono, Clavier: virtuel, chargeur rapide, adaptateur OTG, outil pour carte SIM, câble USB (A vers C), écouteurs, coque, One UI 2.0, Netflix, Spotify, Galaxy Apps, Microsoft Apps, Facebook, 24 Mois Garantie, DAS (tête) : 0,369 W/kg, DAS (corps) : 1,546 W/kg, GNSS mono bande : GPS, Glonass, Galileo, BeiDou, QZSS et SBAS, DRM Widevine L1, fanless
Poids
183 g, Alimentation: 59 g
Prix
1480 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
82 %
04/20
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
SD 855+, Adreno 640
183 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.70"2636x1080
87 %
04/20
OnePlus 7T Pro
SD 855+, Adreno 640
206 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.67"3120x1440
87 %
10/19
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12
198 g256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.70"3040x1440
86 %
04/20
Samsung Galaxy Fold
SD 855, Adreno 640
276 g512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash7.30"2152x1536
89 %
04/20
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16
198 g256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash6.53"2400x1176

Comparaison des tailles

167.3 mm 73.6 mm 7.2 mm 183 g162.6 mm 75.9 mm 8.8 mm 206 g162.6 mm 77.1 mm 7.9 mm 198 g160.9 mm 117.9 mm 6.9 mm 276 g158.1 mm 73.1 mm 8.8 mm 198 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% +104%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
Mali-G76 MP16, Kirin 990, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
637 (584min - 715max) MBit/s ∼66% +34%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Adreno 640, SD 855, 512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
576 (544min - 601max) MBit/s ∼60% +22%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Mali-G76 MP12, Exynos 9820, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
548 (399min - 599max) MBit/s ∼57% +16%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Adreno 640, SD 855+, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
474 (405min - 541max) MBit/s ∼49%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.59 - 1599, n=301, last 2 years)
439 MBit/s ∼45% -7%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Adreno 640, SD 855+, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
352 (311min - 375max) MBit/s ∼36% -26%
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% +67%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
Mali-G76 MP16, Kirin 990, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
533 (468min - 602max) MBit/s ∼53% -12%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Adreno 640, SD 855, 512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
662 (623min - 679max) MBit/s ∼66% +9%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Adreno 640, SD 855+, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
605 (299min - 640max) MBit/s ∼60%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Mali-G76 MP12, Exynos 9820, 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
567 (371min - 667max) MBit/s ∼56% -6%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Adreno 640, SD 855+, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
471 (347min - 505max) MBit/s ∼47% -22%
Average of class Smartphone
  (15.5 - 1414, n=301, last 2 years)
436 MBit/s ∼43% -28%
03570105140175210245280315350385420455490525560595630299635618620631558505610610621607612623617624600589579524593608608616604624602640623622617299635618620631558505610610621607612623617624600589579524593608608616604624602640623622617463488489506469476497422538541426412442431405420472495517466470436504487530513525473461438Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø595 (299-640)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø474 (405-541)
Garmin Edge 500 : vue générale.
Garmin Edge 500 : vue générale.
Garmin Edge 500 : tour du lac.
Garmin Edge 500 : tour du lac.
Garmin Edge 500 : virages.
Garmin Edge 500 : virages.
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip : vue générale.
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip : vue générale.
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip : tour du lac.
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip : tour du lac.
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip : virages.
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip : virages.

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
ColorChecker
10.4 ∆E
8.9 ∆E
10.5 ∆E
12.3 ∆E
8.7 ∆E
3.6 ∆E
11.5 ∆E
11.1 ∆E
10.6 ∆E
4.3 ∆E
6.3 ∆E
7.4 ∆E
7.4 ∆E
11 ∆E
9.8 ∆E
2.8 ∆E
6.7 ∆E
6.6 ∆E
3.3 ∆E
2.2 ∆E
6.9 ∆E
6.9 ∆E
2.8 ∆E
4.2 ∆E
ColorChecker Samsung Galaxy Z Flip: 7.36 ∆E min: 2.25 - max: 12.33 ∆E
ColorChecker
29.1 ∆E
49.5 ∆E
38.4 ∆E
34.8 ∆E
43.4 ∆E
59.1 ∆E
49 ∆E
35.3 ∆E
36.1 ∆E
29 ∆E
60.5 ∆E
59.6 ∆E
31.5 ∆E
47.2 ∆E
33.4 ∆E
69.1 ∆E
39.9 ∆E
41.4 ∆E
73.1 ∆E
67.3 ∆E
50.5 ∆E
36.9 ∆E
23.8 ∆E
13.3 ∆E
ColorChecker Samsung Galaxy Z Flip: 43.81 ∆E min: 13.35 - max: 73.15 ∆E
696
cd/m²
714
cd/m²
716
cd/m²
704
cd/m²
705
cd/m²
719
cd/m²
705
cd/m²
708
cd/m²
718
cd/m²
Homogénéité de la luminosité
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 719 cd/m² Moyenne: 709.4 cd/m² Minimum: 1.64 cd/m²
Homogénéité de la luminosité: 97 %
Valeur mesurée au centre, sur batterie: 705 cd/m²
Contraste: ∞:1 (Valeurs des noirs: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.1 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.5
ΔE Greyscale 2.7 | 0.64-98 Ø5.7
98.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.11
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Dynamic AMOLED, 2636x1080, 6.70
OnePlus 7T Pro
AMOLED, 3120x1440, 6.67
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
OLED, 3040x1440, 6.70
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Infinity Flex-Display (Dynamic AMOLED, 7,3") und Super AMOLED (4,6"), 2152x1536, 7.30
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
OLED, 2400x1176, 6.53
Screen
-3%
-13%
9%
-2%
Brightness middle
705
606
-14%
735
4%
531
-25%
592
-16%
Brightness
709
611
-14%
735
4%
532
-25%
605
-15%
Brightness Distribution
97
95
-2%
94
-3%
97
0%
96
-1%
Black Level *
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
3.1
3.46
-12%
3.9
-26%
2.3
26%
2.5
19%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
5.4
5.64
-4%
10.9
-102%
3.7
31%
5.5
-2%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
2.7
2
26%
1.4
48%
1.5
44%
2.6
4%
Gamma
2.11 104%
2.258 97%
2.09 105%
2.15 102%
2.16 102%
CCT
6264 104%
6779 96%
6549 99%
6631 98%
6173 105%

* ... 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 245.1 Hz ≤ 99 Niveau de luminosité

Le rétroéclairage de l'écran scintille à la fréquence de 245.1 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 245.1 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 15315 (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
3.6 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. » 4 % des appareils testés affichent de meilleures performances.
Cela signifie que les latences relevées sont meilleures que la moyenne (23.9 ms) de tous les appareils testés.
       Temps de réponse gris 50% à gris 80%
4.8 ms ... hausse ↗ et chute ↘ combinées↗ 2 ms hausse
↘ 2.8 ms chute
L'écran montre de très faibles temps de réponse, parfait pour le jeu.
En comparaison, tous les appareils testés affichent entre 0.8 (minimum) et 636 (maximum) ms. » 5 % des appareils testés affichent de meilleures performances.
Cela signifie que les latences relevées sont meilleures que la moyenne (37.8 ms) de tous les appareils testés.
Geekbench 5.3
64 Bit Single-Core Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
738 Points ∼94%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
781 Points ∼100% +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (738 - 764, n=2)
751 Points ∼96% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (58 - 1604, n=248, last 2 years)
581 Points ∼74% -21%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
2665 Points ∼87%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
3062 Points ∼100% +15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (2652 - 2665, n=2)
2659 Points ∼87% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (248 - 4455, n=248, last 2 years)
1991 Points ∼65% -25%
OpenCL Score 5.1 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
2365 Points ∼53%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4491 Points ∼100% +90%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
 
2365 Points ∼53% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (351 - 4586, n=51, last 2 years)
1680 Points ∼37% -29%
Vulkan Score 5.1 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
2096 Points ∼52%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4043 Points ∼100% +93%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
 
2096 Points ∼52% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 4043, n=55, last 2 years)
1574 Points ∼39% -25%
Geekbench 4.1 - 4.4
64 Bit Single-Core Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
4529 Points ∼100%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
3898 Points ∼86%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (3603 - 3705, n=2)
3654 Points ∼81%
Average of class Smartphone
  (412 - 5192, n=67, last 2 years)
2634 Points ∼58%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
10489 Points ∼85%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
12280 Points ∼100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (9705 - 11388, n=2)
10547 Points ∼86%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1163 - 14895, n=67, last 2 years)
8061 Points ∼66%
Compute RenderScript Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
10192 Points ∼83%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
12228 Points ∼100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (7196 - 8317, n=2)
7757 Points ∼63%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2166 - 12228, n=58, last 2 years)
6793 Points ∼56%
PCMark for Android
Work performance score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
12665 Points ∼91%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
12645 Points ∼91% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
9557 Points ∼69% -25%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
12276 Points ∼88% -3%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
13947 Points ∼100% +10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (10286 - 15510, n=6)
13201 Points ∼95% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2689 - 19989, n=212, last 2 years)
10004 Points ∼72% -21%
Work 2.0 performance score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
10261 Points ∼98%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
10442 Points ∼100% +2%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
7704 Points ∼74% -25%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
9655 Points ∼92% -6%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
10322 Points ∼99% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (8702 - 11690, n=6)
10315 Points ∼99% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (82 - 15299, n=259, last 2 years)
7951 Points ∼76% -23%
3DMark
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
80419 Points ∼100%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
72173 Points ∼90% -10%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
54087 Points ∼67% -33%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
68675 Points ∼85% -15%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
64626 Points ∼80% -20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (69829 - 81679, n=6)
75314 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2920 - 117606, n=195, last 2 years)
40234 Points ∼50% -50%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
108418 Points ∼92%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
118129 Points ∼100% +9%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
66990 Points ∼57% -38%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
106066 Points ∼90% -2%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
75073 Points ∼64% -31%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (108418 - 118129, n=6)
114593 Points ∼97% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2177 - 224130, n=195, last 2 years)
57625 Points ∼49% -47%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
42240 Points ∼97%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
30561 Points ∼70% -28%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
32308 Points ∼74% -24%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
30743 Points ∼71% -27%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
43459 Points ∼100% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (30069 - 42240, n=6)
34737 Points ∼80% -18%
Average of class Smartphone
  (8324 - 59268, n=195, last 2 years)
23272 Points ∼54% -45%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
7363 Points ∼90%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
8165 Points ∼100% +11%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
5186 Points ∼64% -30%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
7479 Points ∼92% +2%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6815 Points ∼83% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (6452 - 8338, n=6)
7770 Points ∼95% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 11256, n=257, last 2 years)
3474 Points ∼43% -53%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
9480 Points ∼89%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
10637 Points ∼100% +12%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
6058 Points ∼57% -36%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
9918 Points ∼93% +5%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
7671 Points ∼72% -19%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (9328 - 11259, n=6)
10354 Points ∼97% +9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (54 - 16670, n=257, last 2 years)
4073 Points ∼38% -57%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4133 Points ∼84%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4503 Points ∼92% +9%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
3448 Points ∼70% -17%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
4019 Points ∼82% -3%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4900 Points ∼100% +19%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (3103 - 4503, n=6)
4165 Points ∼85% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (607 - 5301, n=257, last 2 years)
2801 Points ∼57% -32%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
6601 Points ∼77%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
8605 Points ∼100% +30%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
4766 Points ∼55% -28%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
7434 Points ∼86% +13%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
7098 Points ∼82% +8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (6601 - 8651, n=6)
7952 Points ∼92% +20%
Average of class Smartphone
  (149 - 11895, n=278, last 2 years)
4170 Points ∼48% -37%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
7751 Points ∼68%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
11448 Points ∼100% +48%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
5307 Points ∼46% -32%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
9489 Points ∼83% +22%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
7970 Points ∼70% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (7751 - 11448, n=6)
10562 Points ∼92% +36%
Average of class Smartphone
  (122 - 22052, n=278, last 2 years)
5279 Points ∼46% -32%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4344 Points ∼85%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4604 Points ∼90% +6%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
3513 Points ∼68% -19%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
4228 Points ∼82% -3%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
5133 Points ∼100% +18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (3143 - 4725, n=6)
4323 Points ∼84% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (620 - 5784, n=276, last 2 years)
2999 Points ∼58% -31%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
5679 Points ∼91%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
6266 Points ∼100% +10%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
4579 Points ∼73% -19%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
5722 Points ∼91% +1%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6048 Points ∼97% +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (5174 - 6319, n=6)
5993 Points ∼96% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (78 - 9138, n=253, last 2 years)
2669 Points ∼43% -53%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
6314 Points ∼90%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
7044 Points ∼100% +12%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
5152 Points ∼73% -18%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
6350 Points ∼90% +1%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6478 Points ∼92% +3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (6314 - 7150, n=6)
6826 Points ∼97% +8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (62 - 11573, n=253, last 2 years)
2823 Points ∼40% -55%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4201 Points ∼86%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4519 Points ∼92% +8%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
3296 Points ∼67% -22%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
4250 Points ∼87% +1%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4909 Points ∼100% +17%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (3166 - 4519, n=6)
4223 Points ∼86% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5318, n=253, last 2 years)
2835 Points ∼58% -33%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
5141 Points ∼74%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
6916 Points ∼100% +35%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
4821 Points ∼70% -6%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
6227 Points ∼90% +21%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6382 Points ∼92% +24%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (5141 - 6916, n=6)
6358 Points ∼92% +24%
Average of class Smartphone
  (91 - 9839, n=277, last 2 years)
3386 Points ∼49% -34%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
5424 Points ∼68%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
8006 Points ∼100% +48%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
5418 Points ∼68% 0%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
7114 Points ∼89% +31%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6657 Points ∼83% +23%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (5424 - 8006, n=6)
7358 Points ∼92% +36%
Average of class Smartphone
  (73 - 12914, n=277, last 2 years)
3823 Points ∼48% -30%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4348 Points ∼78%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4683 Points ∼84% +8%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
3480 Points ∼62% -20%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
4336 Points ∼78% 0%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
5576 Points ∼100% +28%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (3137 - 4737, n=6)
4371 Points ∼78% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (620 - 5793, n=277, last 2 years)
3045 Points ∼55% -30%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
3981 Points ∼71%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
5509 Points ∼99% +38%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
4515 Points ∼81% +13%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
4974 Points ∼89% +25%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
5570 Points ∼100% +40%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (3981 - 5530, n=5)
5023 Points ∼90% +26%
Average of class Smartphone
  (426 - 6977, n=214, last 2 years)
2638 Points ∼47% -34%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4250 Points ∼65%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
6527 Points ∼100% +54%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
5565 Points ∼85% +31%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
5884 Points ∼90% +38%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6369 Points ∼98% +50%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (4250 - 6640, n=5)
5966 Points ∼91% +40%
Average of class Smartphone
  (349 - 11259, n=214, last 2 years)
2958 Points ∼45% -30%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
3259 Points ∼84%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
3564 Points ∼92% +9%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
2720 Points ∼70% -17%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
3228 Points ∼83% -1%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
3870 Points ∼100% +19%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (2587 - 3565, n=5)
3293 Points ∼85% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1786 - 4061, n=214, last 2 years)
2649 Points ∼68% -19%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
60 fps ∼100%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
60 fps ∼100% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
59 fps ∼98% -2%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
60 fps ∼100% 0%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
60 fps ∼100% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (59 - 61, n=4)
60 fps ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (8.2 - 143, n=218, last 2 years)
59.6 fps ∼99% -1%
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
166 fps ∼90%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
185 fps ∼100% +11%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
97 fps ∼52% -42%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
115 fps ∼62% -31%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
152 fps ∼82% -8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (166 - 185, n=4)
176 fps ∼95% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4.3 - 319, n=218, last 2 years)
108 fps ∼58% -35%
GFXBench 3.0
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
56 fps ∼93%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
57 fps ∼95% +2%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
53 fps ∼88% -5%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
58 fps ∼97% +4%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
60 fps ∼100% +7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (56 - 61, n=4)
58.3 fps ∼97% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (4.5 - 120, n=216, last 2 years)
47.1 fps ∼79% -16%
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
73 fps ∼66%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
111 fps ∼100% +52%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
85 fps ∼77% +16%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
90 fps ∼81% +23%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
106 fps ∼95% +45%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (73 - 112, n=4)
99 fps ∼89% +36%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 180, n=217, last 2 years)
63.5 fps ∼57% -13%
GFXBench 3.1
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
41 fps ∼56%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
40 fps ∼55% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
37 fps ∼51% -10%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
46 fps ∼63% +12%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
73 fps ∼100% +78%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (40 - 58, n=4)
49.3 fps ∼68% +20%
Average of class Smartphone
  (3.1 - 106, n=215, last 2 years)
36.7 fps ∼50% -10%
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
51 fps ∼65%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
79 fps ∼100% +55%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
67 fps ∼85% +31%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
62 fps ∼78% +22%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
56 fps ∼71% +10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (51 - 79, n=4)
70 fps ∼89% +37%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 121, n=215, last 2 years)
43.6 fps ∼55% -15%
GFXBench
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
25 fps ∼74%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
24 fps ∼71% -4%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
23 fps ∼68% -8%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
32 fps ∼94% +28%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
34 fps ∼100% +36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (24 - 41, n=4)
32 fps ∼94% +28%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2.8 - 61, n=214, last 2 years)
22.8 fps ∼67% -9%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
31 fps ∼65%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
48 fps ∼100% +55%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
43 fps ∼90% +39%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
42 fps ∼88% +35%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
41 fps ∼85% +32%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (31 - 48, n=4)
42.3 fps ∼88% +36%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.8 - 75, n=214, last 2 years)
26.2 fps ∼55% -15%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
23 fps ∼58%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
26 fps ∼65% +13%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
26 fps ∼65% +13%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
32 fps ∼80% +39%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
40 fps ∼100% +74%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (23 - 60, n=6)
36 fps ∼90% +57%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.5 - 73, n=283, last 2 years)
23.1 fps ∼58% 0%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
16 fps ∼21%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
47 fps ∼61% +194%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
46 fps ∼60% +188%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
42 fps ∼55% +163%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
49 fps ∼64% +206%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (16 - 257, n=6)
76.8 fps ∼100% +380%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.95 - 257, n=282, last 2 years)
26.6 fps ∼35% +66%
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
34 fps ∼100%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
17 fps ∼50% -50%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
16 fps ∼47% -53%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
21 fps ∼62% -38%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
26 fps ∼76% -24%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (17 - 60, n=6)
30.3 fps ∼89% -11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 60, n=283, last 2 years)
15.2 fps ∼45% -55%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
39 fps ∼100%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
19 fps ∼49% -51%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
17 fps ∼44% -56%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
17 fps ∼44% -56%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
19 fps ∼49% -51%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (18 - 101, n=6)
35.7 fps ∼92% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.35 - 101, n=283, last 2 years)
10.4 fps ∼27% -73%
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
463291 Points ∼95%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
486654 Points ∼100% +5%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
483224 Points ∼99% +4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (462125 - 501784, n=4)
478464 Points ∼98% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53335 - 727247, n=195, last 2 years)
337174 Points ∼69% -27%
Basemark GPU 1.1
1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
44.62 fps ∼100%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
33.9 (9.36min - 74.72max) fps ∼76%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (38.9 - 44.6, n=2)
41.8 fps ∼94%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7.44 - 71.6, n=11, last 2 years)
28.9 fps ∼65%
Vulkan Medium Native (Classer selon les valeurs)
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
28.5 fps ∼90%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
31.12 (11.09min - 63.1max) fps ∼98%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (28.5 - 35, n=2)
31.8 fps ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (6.65 - 63, n=10, last 2 years)
23.6 fps ∼74%
1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
45.28 fps ∼100%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
29.22 (4.07min - 95.16max) fps ∼65%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (42.2 - 45.3, n=2)
43.7 fps ∼97%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7.73 - 85.6, n=14, last 2 years)
26.3 fps ∼58%
VRMark - Amber Room (Classer selon les valeurs)
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4986 Score ∼100%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
4997 Score ∼100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (4986 - 5025, n=2)
5006 Score ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone
  (421 - 7649, n=56, last 2 years)
3184 Score ∼64%
BaseMark OS II
Overall (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4998 Points ∼93%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
4992 Points ∼93% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
4226 Points ∼78% -15%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
4835 Points ∼90% -3%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
5389 Points ∼100% +8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (4992 - 5335, n=5)
5151 Points ∼96% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (323 - 7123, n=204, last 2 years)
3730 Points ∼69% -25%
System (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
8507 Points ∼91%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
9294 Points ∼100% +9%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
7793 Points ∼84% -8%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
8825 Points ∼95% +4%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
9309 Points ∼100% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (8507 - 9294, n=5)
8896 Points ∼96% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1160 - 11774, n=204, last 2 years)
6806 Points ∼73% -20%
Memory (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
5434 Points ∼89%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
5091 Points ∼83% -6%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
4502 Points ∼73% -17%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
4945 Points ∼81% -9%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
6130 Points ∼100% +13%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (4869 - 6077, n=5)
5378 Points ∼88% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (522 - 9044, n=204, last 2 years)
4385 Points ∼72% -19%
Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
9334 Points ∼88%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
10618 Points ∼100% +14%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
8981 Points ∼85% -4%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
9510 Points ∼90% +2%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
10112 Points ∼95% +8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (9334 - 10618, n=5)
10312 Points ∼97% +10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (349 - 15739, n=204, last 2 years)
5828 Points ∼55% -38%
Web (Classer selon les valeurs)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
1446 Points ∼99%
OnePlus 7T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus, Adreno 640, 8192
1236 Points ∼85% -15%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
Samsung Exynos 9820, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
1012 Points ∼69% -30%
Samsung Galaxy Fold
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
1317 Points ∼90% -9%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16, 8192
1462 Points ∼100% +1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
  (1236 - 1546, n=5)
1436 Points ∼98% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (10 - 2169, n=204, last 2 years)
1282 Points ∼88% -11%
Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
65.88 Points ∼100% +4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus (62.4 - 70.9, n=5)
65.8 Points ∼100% +4%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip (Chrome 80)
63.087 Points ∼96%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)
62.417 Points ∼95% -1%
Samsung Galaxy Fold (Samung Browser 10.1)
53.761 Points ∼82% -15%
Average of class Smartphone (12.4 - 161, n=186, last 2 years)
50.2 Points ∼76% -20%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G (Samung Browser 9.2)
44.352 Points ∼67% -30%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus (114 - 121, n=5)
117 Points ∼100% +3%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
115.49 Points ∼99% +1%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)
115.44 Points ∼99% +1%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip (Chrome 80)
113.88 Points ∼97%
Samsung Galaxy Fold (Samsung Browser 10.1)
113.68 Points ∼97% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G (Samsung Browser 9.2)
90.876 Points ∼78% -20%
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 375, n=198, last 2 years)
90.3 Points ∼77% -21%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
74.1 runs/min ∼100% +19%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chome 78)
66.4 runs/min ∼90% +6%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip (Chrome 80)
62.5 runs/min ∼84%
Samsung Galaxy Fold (Samsung Browser 10.1)
61.5 runs/min ∼83% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus (39.1 - 69.1, n=4)
59.3 runs/min ∼80% -5%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G (Samsung Browser 9.2)
57 runs/min ∼77% -9%
Average of class Smartphone (9 - 196, n=171, last 2 years)
49 runs/min ∼66% -22%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Samsung Galaxy Fold (Samsung Browser 10.1)
129 Points ∼100% +32%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
119 Points ∼92% +21%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
115 Points ∼89% +17%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus (89 - 111, n=5)
98.2 Points ∼76% 0%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip (Chrome 80)
98 Points ∼76%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)
93 Points ∼72% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (20 - 194, n=205, last 2 years)
78.2 Points ∼61% -20%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus (23781 - 25353, n=5)
24606 Points ∼100% +3%
Samsung Galaxy Fold (Samsung Browser 10.1)
24128 Points ∼98% +1%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)
23999 Points ∼98% +1%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip (Chrome 80)
23781 Points ∼97%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
23568 Points ∼96% -1%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G (Samsung Browser 9.2)
20653 Points ∼84% -13%
Average of class Smartphone (1986 - 58632, n=213, last 2 years)
17842 Points ∼73% -25%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (460 - 29635, n=215, last 2 years)
3894 ms * ∼100% -88%
OnePlus 7T Pro (Chrome 78)
2133.5 ms * ∼55% -3%
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip (Chrome 80)
2076.8 ms * ∼53%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus (2007 - 2134, n=5)
2054 ms * ∼53% +1%
Samsung Galaxy Fold (Samsung Browser 10.1)
2002.8 ms * ∼51% +4%
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78)
1962.5 ms * ∼50% +6%
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G (Samsung Browser 9.2)
1823.2 ms * ∼47% +12%

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

Samsung Galaxy Z FlipOnePlus 7T ProSamsung Galaxy S10 5GSamsung Galaxy FoldHuawei Mate 30 ProAverage 256 GB UFS 3.0 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-29%
-53%
-33%
11%
4%
-36%
Sequential Read 256KB
1442.56
1489
3%
815.56
-43%
1302.76
-10%
1780.5
23%
1603 (1398 - 1789, n=20)
11%
787 (41.9 - 2037, n=291, last 2 years)
-45%
Sequential Write 256KB
523.39
405
-23%
246.3
-53%
394.51
-25%
401.79
-23%
546 (387 - 756, n=20)
4%
350 (11.9 - 1321, n=291, last 2 years)
-33%
Random Read 4KB
184.51
169
-8%
134.96
-27%
158.38
-14%
226.38
23%
208 (169 - 265, n=20)
13%
140 (13.5 - 325, n=291, last 2 years)
-24%
Random Write 4KB
212.87
26
-88%
23.79
-89%
34.41
-84%
259.21
22%
184 (24.8 - 272, n=20)
-14%
126 (5.2 - 330, n=291, last 2 years)
-41%
051015202530354040404040404040394040404041404040394040404040404040404040403941404040404040404040404040394040404040404040404040404039404040403940404040404040404040404040404040404040404040404040403941404040404040404040404040404040394041403940404040404040404040404040404040404139404040404040393941404040394140404040404040404040404040403941404040404040404040404040404040404039404140404040404040404040404040394040404140404019384039403940404040404040403940404040414040403940404040404040404040404039414040404040404040404040403940404040404040404040404040394040404039404040404040404040404040404040404040404040404040404039414040404040404040404040404040403940414039404040404040404040404040404040404041394040404040403939414040403941404040404040404040404040404039414040404040404040404040404040404040394041404040404040404040404040403940404041404040193840394039402931303030303030293029282931302930302930303030303028293031293129283130303030Tooltip
; PUBG Mobile; 0.17.0: Ø39.9 (19-41)
; Asphalt 9: Legends; 2.0.5a: Ø29.7 (28-31)
 37.6 °C37.6 °C30.6 °C 
 38.8 °C36.8 °C30.4 °C 
 38.6 °C37.7 °C30.5 °C 
Maximum: 38.8 °C
Moyenne: 35.4 °C
28.8 °C34.1 °C35.1 °C
28.8 °C32.4 °C35.3 °C
28.2 °C34.2 °C35.8 °C
Maximum: 35.8 °C
Moyenne: 32.5 °C
Alimentation (valeur maximale)  27.7 °C | Température ambiante de la pièce 22 °C | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated), Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 35.4 °C / 96 F, compared to the average of 32.9 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 38.8 °C / 102 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 35.8 °C / 96 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.4 °C / 81 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2032.432.22530.727.13126.424.14024.233.55029.232.26321.825.98019.421.910022.621.51251926.816018.444.720017.148.525016.654.731518.357.840014.858.850015.66363015.263.480014.466.1100014.169.4125014.470.7160013.372.1200013.774.6250014.276.2315014.676.1400014.478.9500014.677.1630014.973.5800014.774.51000014.973.41250014.969.11600015.560.5SPL26.786.4N0.864.1median 14.9median 69.1Delta1.410.441.231.237.534.130.529.33329.637.635.828.625.823.922.222.824.721.929.220.338.82045.819.153.51756.616.556.116.86016.260.515.564.614.869.114.171.415.573.915.572.514.571.213.869.713.76713.866.81465.51466.914.165.714.263.414.35365.168.168.164.360.964.462.127.181.418.721.921.916.313.816.914.70.948median 15.5median 64.61.97.9hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseSamsung Galaxy Z FlipOnePlus 7T Pro
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.6% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 22% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 69% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 48% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 44% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

OnePlus 7T Pro audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.7% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 16% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 76% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 43% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 50% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%

Consommation énergétique
Éteint/en veilledarklight 0.01 / 0.25 Watts
Au reposdarkmidlight 0.59 / 0.88 / 0.95 Watts
Fortement sollicité midlight 4.97 / 8.37 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 Z Flip
3300 mAh
OnePlus 7T Pro
4085 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
4500 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Fold
4235 mAh
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
4500 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855+ / 855 Plus
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-154%
-50%
-0%
-39%
-72%
-52%
Idle Minimum *
0.59
2.1
-256%
0.66
-12%
0.6
-2%
0.87
-47%
1.183 (0.59 - 2.1, n=6)
-101%
0.954 (0.37 - 2.5, n=233, last 2 years)
-62%
Idle Average *
0.88
3
-241%
1.82
-107%
0.85
3%
1.75
-99%
1.883 (0.88 - 3, n=6)
-114%
1.813 (0.65 - 3.94, n=233, last 2 years)
-106%
Idle Maximum *
0.95
3.5
-268%
1.83
-93%
1
-5%
1.83
-93%
2.32 (0.95 - 3.5, n=6)
-144%
2.06 (0.69 - 4.2, n=233, last 2 years)
-117%
Load Average *
4.97
5.3
-7%
6.11
-23%
4.47
10%
3.85
23%
4.91 (4.14 - 5.3, n=6)
1%
4.44 (2.1 - 8.4, n=233, last 2 years)
11%
Load Maximum *
8.37
8.3
1%
9.81
-17%
9.02
-8%
6.64
21%
8.59 (8.3 - 9.2, n=6)
-3%
7.29 (3.68 - 12.3, n=233, last 2 years)
13%

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

Autonomie
Au repos (module WiFi éteint, luminosité au minimum)
29h 01min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3 (Chrome 80)
10h 47min
En lecture de Big Buck Bunny encodé en H.264 1080p
8h 47min
Fortement sollicité (luminosité au maximum)
2h 37min
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip
3300 mAh
OnePlus 7T Pro
4085 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
4500 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Fold
4235 mAh
Huawei Mate 30 Pro
4500 mAh
Autonomie de la batterie
55%
56%
47%
50%
Reader / Idle
1741
2015
16%
2340
34%
1724
-1%
2174
25%
H.264
527
957
82%
1047
99%
1027
95%
1098
108%
WiFi v1.3
647
912
41%
533
-18%
600
-7%
823
27%
Load
157
283
80%
327
108%
316
101%
219
39%

Points positifs

+ smartphone pliable original et compact
+ luminosité et fidélité des couleurs de l'écran
+ SoC Snapdragon
+ appareils photo
+ double SIM via eSIM
+ nombre de fréquences

Points négatifs

- absence d'extension de stockage
- Wifi
- qualité d'appel
- glisse de l'écran

Verdict

En test : le Samsung Galaxy Z Flip (SM-F700F).
En test : le Samsung Galaxy Z Flip (SM-F700F).

Le Samsung Galaxy Z Flip est particulièrement convaincant avec sa conception pliable, qui le rend plus facile à manipuler au quotidien que les autres écrans avec des écrans aussi grands. Et c’est une joie rien que de plier l’écran d’une main… La fonction de pied connecté à la charnière est également plutôt pratique, et nous l’avons utilisée plus souvent que prévu.

Le Galaxy Z Flip n’est ni bon marché, ni parfait, mais il est bien sympathique.

Le plus gros défaut de l’appareil est en fait la qualité de la surface de l’écran. Le film protecteur est nécessaire, mais elle ne paraît pas de bonne qualité, et ne tient pas la comparaison avec une surface en verre qui ne serait qu’à moitié réussie… De plus, nous aurions préféré avec un appareil photo plus polyvalent dans cette gamme de prix.

Ceux qui recherchent un smartphone avec un peu rapport performances / prix devront chercher ailleurs. Et ceux qui voudraient avoir en main un appareil futuriste devront accepter des sacrifices en ce qui concerne les performances, mais celles-ci ne sont pas nécessairement importantes au quotidien.

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

Samsung Galaxy Z Flip - 03/21/2020 v7
Daniel Schmidt

Châssis
81%
Clavier
66 / 75 → 88%
Dispositif de pointage
85%
Connectivité
50 / 70 → 72%
Poids
90%
Autonomie
83%
Écran
88%
Performances en jeu
52 / 64 → 80%
Performances dans les applications
79 / 86 → 92%
Chauffe
92%
Nuisance sonore
100%
Audio
70 / 90 → 78%
Appareil photo
69%
Moyenne
77%
82%
Smartphone - Moyenne compensée

Pricecompare

Stephanie Chamberlain
Editor of the original article: Stephanie Chamberlain - Translator - 414 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2020
contact me via: LinkedIn
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Revues et rapports de ordinateurs portatifs et smartphones, ordiphones > Critiques > Test du Samsung Galaxy Z Flip : le meilleur des smartphones pliables
Daniel Schmidt, 2020-04-16 (Update: 2020-04-16)