Notebookcheck

Test du Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 : le meilleur smartphone de la série Redmi 9, avec quadruple appareil photo 64 MP

De petites différences aux effets conséquents. Sur le papier, le Redmi Note 9 est une version légèrement améliorée de son alter-ego le Redmi 9. Cependant, ces petites améliorations sur la fiche technique entraînent des différences notables au quotidien. Découvrez dans ce test comment le smartphone Xiaomi se comporte...
Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Daniel Schmidt (traduit par Prévots), 🇺🇸 🇩🇪 ...
Android Smartphone Touchscreen
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Redmi Note Gamme)
Processeur
Mediatek Helio G85 8 x 2 GHz, Cortex-A75 / A55
Carte graphique
ARM Mali-G52 MP2
Mémoire
3072 Mo 
Écran
6.53 pouces 19.5:9, 2340 x 1080 pixel 395 PPP, capacitif, IPS LCD, Gorilla Glass 5, brillant: oui, 60 Hz
Disque dur
64 GB eMMC Flash, 64 Go 
, 47.5 Go libres
Connexions
1 USB 2.0, Connectique audio: jack 3,5 mm, Lecteur de cartes mémoires: micro SD, 1 Lecteur d'empreintes digitales, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Capteurs: capteur de proximité, accéléromètre, gyroscope, boussole, USB C, Miracast, émetteur IR, nano coating
Réseau
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM : B2 / 3 / 5 / 8; WCDMA: B1 / 2 / 4 / 5 / 8; FDD-LTE : B1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 7 / 8 / 20 / 28, TDD-LTE : B38 / 40 / 41, Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Taille
Hauteur x Largeur x Profondeur (en mm): 8.9 x 162.3 x 77.2
Batterie
5020 mAh Lithium-Polymère
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Système d'exploitation
Android 10
Appareil photo
Appareil photo primaire: 48 MPix (f/1,8, 26 mm, 1 / 2.0", 0,8 µm) + 8MP (f/2,2, 118˚, 1 / 4.0", 1,12µm) + 2 MP (f/2,4) + 2 MP (f/2,4), API Camera2 : full
Appareil photo secondaire: 13 MPix (f/2,3, 29mm, 1/3,1", 1,12 µm)
Fonctionnalités additionnelles
Haut-parleurs: mono, Clavier: virtuel, adaptateur secteur modulaire, câble USB C, outil pour carte SIM, manuel utilisateur, carte de garantie, MiUI 12, 12 Mois Garantie, Widevine L1, DAS (tête : 0,8 W/kg, corps: 1,14 W/kg) , fanless
Poids
199 g, Alimentation: 87 g
Prix
199 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
80 %
10/20
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2		199 g64 GB eMMC Flash6.53"2340x1080
78 %
09/20
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2		198 g32 GB eMMC Flash6.53"2340x1080
81 %
06/20
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
SD 720G, Adreno 618		209 g128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash6.67"2400x1080
76 %
09/20
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2		192 g32 GB eMMC Flash6.50"1600x720
78 %
07/20
realme 6i
Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2		199 g128 GB eMMC Flash6.50"1600x720
75 %
10/20
Sony Xperia L4
Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320		178 g64 GB eMMC Flash6.20"1680x720
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 smartphone
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 smartphone
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 smartphone
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 smartphone
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 smartphone
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 smartphone

Top 10
» Le Top 10 des PC portables multimédia 
» Le Top 10 des PC portables de jeu
» Le Top 10 des PC portables de jeu légers
» Le Top 10 des ordinateurs portables bureautiques
» Le Top 10 des PC portables bureautiques premium/professionnels 
» Le Top 10 des Stations de travail mobiles
» Le Top 10 des Ultraportables
» Le Top 10 des Ultrabooks
» Le Top 10 des Convertibles
» Le Top 10 des Tablettes
» Le Top 10 des Tablettes Windows
» Le Top 10 des Smartphones
» Le Top 10 des PC Portables á moins de 300 euros
» Le Top 10 des PC Portables á moins de 500 euros
» Le Top 25 des meilleurs écrans d'ordinateurs

Comparaison des tailles

❌
165.8 mm 76.7 mm 8.8 mm 209 g164.4 mm 75.4 mm 9 mm 199 g163.7 mm 75.3 mm 8.9 mm 192 g163.3 mm 77 mm 9.1 mm 198 g162.3 mm 77.2 mm 8.9 mm 199 g159 mm 71 mm 8.7 mm 178 g
Networking
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.59 - 1599, n=297, last 2 years)
397 MBit/s ∼100% +14%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mali-G52 MP2, Helio G80, 32 GB eMMC Flash
348 (325min - 355max) MBit/s ∼88% 0%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mali-G52 MP2, Helio G85, 64 GB eMMC Flash
347 (172min - 352max) MBit/s ∼87%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Mali-G52 MP2, Exynos 850, 32 GB eMMC Flash
310 (269min - 342max) MBit/s ∼78% -11%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Adreno 618, SD 720G, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
256 (247min - 263max) MBit/s ∼64% -26%
Sony Xperia L4
PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762, 64 GB eMMC Flash
109 (103min - 114max) MBit/s ∼27% -69%
realme 6i
Mali-G52 MP2, Helio G80, 128 GB eMMC Flash
66.5 (34min - 69max) MBit/s ∼17% -81%
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Average of class Smartphone
  (15.5 - 1414, n=297, last 2 years)
404 MBit/s ∼100% +14%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mali-G52 MP2, Helio G85, 64 GB eMMC Flash
355 (327min - 366max) MBit/s ∼88%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Mali-G52 MP2, Exynos 850, 32 GB eMMC Flash
326 (280min - 333max) MBit/s ∼81% -8%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mali-G52 MP2, Helio G80, 32 GB eMMC Flash
308 (290min - 337max) MBit/s ∼76% -13%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Adreno 618, SD 720G, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
286 (225min - 321max) MBit/s ∼71% -19%
Sony Xperia L4
PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762, 64 GB eMMC Flash
120 (106min - 124max) MBit/s ∼30% -66%
realme 6i
Mali-G52 MP2, Helio G80, 128 GB eMMC Flash
36.1 (9min - 57max) MBit/s ∼9% -90%
020406080100120140160180200220240260280300320340360351360356366356354361341359357361360357360359355348360359360348338341333344327331328335336351360356366356354361341359357361360357360359355348360359360348338341333344327331328335336172350345346344347331348349343352347350347344347341351345347349348349348346351346344350346Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø350 (327-366)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø341 (172-352)
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Redmi Note 9
GPS Redmi Note 9
GPS Redmi Note 9
GPS Redmi Note 9
GPS Redmi Note 9
GPS Redmi Note 9
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 - Ultra-grand-angle.
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 - Ultra-grand-angle.
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 - Grand-angle.
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 - Grand-angle.
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 - 2x zoom.
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 - 2x zoom.
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 - 10x zoom (max).
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 - 10x zoom (max).

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.

Wide angleLow light5x ZoomUltra wide angleWide angle
Cliquer pour charger les images
ColorChecker
7.5 ∆E
5.8 ∆E
5.2 ∆E
9.3 ∆E
4.9 ∆E
3.7 ∆E
4 ∆E
8.8 ∆E
5.6 ∆E
3.8 ∆E
4 ∆E
5.5 ∆E
6.1 ∆E
7 ∆E
7.9 ∆E
2.2 ∆E
3.2 ∆E
8.5 ∆E
2 ∆E
4.3 ∆E
6.3 ∆E
4.8 ∆E
2.2 ∆E
3.6 ∆E
ColorChecker Xiaomi Redmi Note 9: 5.26 ∆E min: 2 - max: 9.27 ∆E
ColorChecker
26.8 ∆E
45.8 ∆E
34.8 ∆E
38.4 ∆E
37.3 ∆E
53 ∆E
44.8 ∆E
27.7 ∆E
29.7 ∆E
23.2 ∆E
54.6 ∆E
56.6 ∆E
23.5 ∆E
43 ∆E
24.9 ∆E
59.1 ∆E
31 ∆E
40.3 ∆E
53.6 ∆E
55 ∆E
45.1 ∆E
34.8 ∆E
23.1 ∆E
13.8 ∆E
ColorChecker Xiaomi Redmi Note 9: 38.34 ∆E min: 13.83 - max: 59.12 ∆E
535
cd/m²		527
cd/m²		492
cd/m²
539
cd/m²		553
cd/m²		508
cd/m²
538
cd/m²		542
cd/m²		505
cd/m²
Homogénéité de la luminosité
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 553 cd/m² Moyenne: 526.6 cd/m² Minimum: 1.28 cd/m²
Homogénéité de la luminosité: 89 %
Valeur mesurée au centre, sur batterie: 553 cd/m²
Contraste: 4608:1 (Valeurs des noirs: 0.12 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.8 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.6
ΔE Greyscale 2.2 | 0.64-98 Ø5.8
97.7% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.3
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
IPS LCD, 2340x1080, 6.53		Xiaomi Redmi 9
IPS LCD, 2340x1080, 6.53		Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
IPS, 2400x1080, 6.67		Samsung Galaxy A21s
PLS, 1600x720, 6.50		realme 6i
IPS, 1600x720, 6.50		Sony Xperia L4
IPS, 1680x720, 6.20
Screen
-68%
-63%
-71%
-62%
-63%
Brightness middle
553
476
-14%
622
12%
540
-2%
518
-6%
429
-22%
Brightness
527
436
-17%
612
16%
509
-3%
484
-8%
404
-23%
Brightness Distribution
89
86
-3%
94
6%
91
2%
89
0%
92
3%
Black Level *
0.12
0.67
-458%
0.56
-367%
0.36
-200%
0.26
-117%
0.26
-117%
Contrast
4608
710
-85%
1111
-76%
1500
-67%
1992
-57%
1650
-64%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
3.8
3.51
8%
3.98
-5%
6.58
-73%
5.8
-53%
6.14
-62%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
8.7
9.38
-8%
7.33
16%
11.55
-33%
11
-26%
10.51
-21%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
2.2
1.5
32%
4.5
-105%
6.4
-191%
7.3
-232%
6.6
-200%
Gamma
2.3 96%
2.166 102%
2.206 100%
2.206 100%
2.23 99%
2.23 99%
CCT
6727 97%
6485 100%
7361 88%
8482 77%
8037 81%
8346 78%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
114.9

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

Scintillement / MLI (Modulation de largeur d'impulsion)

ℹ
Afin d'abaisser la luminosité de l'écran, certains ordinateurs portables font varier très rapidement le rétroéclairage entre éteint et allumé. La fréquence à laquelle le rétroéclairage s'éteint et se rallume est normalement fixée à une valeur qui permet de rendre la variation indétectable à l'œil nu? Si la fréquence est trop basse, certaines personnes peuvent être sujettes à une fatigue oculaire, des maux de tête ou même percevoir les variations.
Scintillement / MLI (Modulation de largeur d'impulsion) non décelé

En comparaison, 52 % des appareils testés n'emploient pas MDI pour assombrir leur écran. Nous avons relevé une moyenne à 9695 (minimum : 5 - maximum : 151500) Hz dans le cas où une MDI était active.

Temps de réponse de l'écran

ℹ
Le temps de réponse d'un écran mesure la rapidité à laquelle l'écran est capable de changer une couleur pour une autre. Un temps de réponse élevé se traduit par une image floutée pour les objets en mouvement. Les joueurs bénéficieront de faibles latences d'affichage en jeu.
   ↔    Temps de réponse noir à blanc
25.6 ms ... hausse ↗ et chute ↘ combinées↗ 12.4 ms hausse
↘ 13.2 ms chute
L'écran souffre de latences relativement élevées, insuffisant pour le jeu.
En comparaison, tous les appareils testés affichent entre 0.8 (minimum) et 240 (maximum) ms. » 47 % des appareils testés affichent de meilleures performances.
Cela signifie que les latences relevées sont similaires à la moyenne (24.1 ms) de tous les appareils testés.
   ↔    Temps de réponse gris 50% à gris 80%
38.8 ms ... hausse ↗ et chute ↘ combinées↗ 19.6 ms hausse
↘ 19.2 ms chute
L'écran souffre de latences très élevées, à éviter pour le jeu.
En comparaison, tous les appareils testés affichent entre 0.8 (minimum) et 636 (maximum) ms. » 43 % des appareils testés affichent de meilleures performances.
Cela signifie que les latences relevées sont similaires à la moyenne (38.3 ms) de tous les appareils testés.
Geekbench 5.3 | PCMark for Android | VRMark | BaseMark OS II
Geekbench 5.3
64 Bit Single-Core Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
356 Points ∼64%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
363 Points ∼65% +2%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
559 Points ∼100% +57%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
182 Points ∼33% -49%
realme 6i
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
387 Points ∼69% +9%
Sony Xperia L4
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
150 Points ∼27% -58%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
  (354 - 369, n=3)
360 Points ∼64% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (58 - 1604, n=216, last 2 years)
559 Points ∼100% +57%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1259 Points ∼65%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1281 Points ∼67% +2%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
1690 Points ∼88% +34%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1081 Points ∼56% -14%
realme 6i
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1348 Points ∼70% +7%
Sony Xperia L4
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
883 Points ∼46% -30%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
  (1259 - 1351, n=3)
1305 Points ∼68% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (248 - 4201, n=216, last 2 years)
1925 Points ∼100% +53%
Vulkan Score 5.3 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1179 Points ∼58%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1109 Points ∼55% -6%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
565 Points ∼28% -52%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
  (1163 - 1179, n=2)
1171 Points ∼58% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (72 - 6524, n=108, last 2 years)
2030 Points ∼100% +72%
OpenCL Score 5.3 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1198 Points ∼56%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1124 Points ∼53% -6%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
593 Points ∼28% -51%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
  (1185 - 1233, n=3)
1205 Points ∼57% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (255 - 7514, n=112, last 2 years)
2124 Points ∼100% +77%
PCMark for Android
Work performance score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
11421 Points ∼95%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
11534 Points ∼96% +1%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
9027 Points ∼75% -21%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
7113 Points ∼59% -38%
realme 6i
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
12043 Points ∼100% +5%
Sony Xperia L4
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
6909 Points ∼57% -40%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
  (11421 - 11889, n=2)
11655 Points ∼97% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2689 - 19989, n=237, last 2 years)
9863 Points ∼82% -14%
Work 2.0 performance score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
8698 Points ∼99%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
8795 Points ∼100% +1%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
7673 Points ∼87% -12%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
5457 Points ∼62% -37%
realme 6i
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
8733 Points ∼99% 0%
Sony Xperia L4
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
5251 Points ∼60% -40%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
  (8655 - 8698, n=3)
8674 Points ∼99% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (82 - 15299, n=271, last 2 years)
7779 Points ∼88% -11%
VRMark - Amber Room (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1375 Score ∼42%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1330 Score ∼40% -3%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
2416 Score ∼73% +76%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
994 Score ∼30% -28%
realme 6i
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1352 Score ∼41% -2%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
 
1375 Score ∼42% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (421 - 7649, n=56, last 2 years)
3290 Score ∼100% +139%
BaseMark OS II
Overall (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
2285 Points ∼65%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
2273 Points ∼64% -1%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3542 Points ∼100% +55%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1644 Points ∼46% -28%
realme 6i
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
2216 Points ∼63% -3%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
 
2285 Points ∼65% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (323 - 6959, n=204, last 2 years)
3525 Points ∼100% +54%
System (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
5010 Points ∼73%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
4865 Points ∼71% -3%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
6828 Points ∼100% +36%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
3382 Points ∼50% -32%
realme 6i
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
4516 Points ∼66% -10%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
 
5010 Points ∼73% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1160 - 14189, n=204, last 2 years)
6471 Points ∼95% +29%
Memory (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
2536 Points ∼59%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
2654 Points ∼62% +5%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
4295 Points ∼100% +69%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1884 Points ∼44% -26%
realme 6i
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
2542 Points ∼59% 0%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
 
2536 Points ∼59% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (522 - 9044, n=204, last 2 years)
4123 Points ∼96% +63%
Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1845 Points ∼34%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1759 Points ∼32% -5%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3807 Points ∼70% +106%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1159 Points ∼21% -37%
realme 6i
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1735 Points ∼32% -6%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
 
1845 Points ∼34% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (349 - 16996, n=204, last 2 years)
5438 Points ∼100% +195%
Web (Classer selon les valeurs)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1198 Points ∼85%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1243 Points ∼88% +4%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
1410 Points ∼100% +18%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
990 Points ∼70% -17%
realme 6i
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1211 Points ∼86% +1%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
 
1198 Points ∼85% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (10 - 2169, n=204, last 2 years)
1246 Points ∼88% +4%
Jetstream 2 | JetStream 1.1 | Speedometer 2.0 | WebXPRT 3 | Octane V2 | Mozilla Kraken 1.1
Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (12.4 - 161, n=186, last 2 years)
49.6 Points ∼100% +66%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81)
48.527 Points ∼98% +62%
Xiaomi Redmi 9 (Chrome 85)
30.521 Points ∼62% +2%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85)
29.951 Points ∼60%
Average Mediatek Helio G85 (29.2 - 30, n=2)
29.6 Points ∼60% -1%
realme 6i (Chrome 81)
28.96 Points ∼58% -3%
Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84)
19.147 Points ∼39% -36%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81)
89.457 Points ∼100% +66%
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 375, n=194, last 2 years)
87.8 Points ∼98% +63%
realme 6i (Chrome 81)
54.343 Points ∼61% +1%
Xiaomi Redmi 9 (Chrome 85)
53.987 Points ∼60% 0%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
53.9 Points ∼60% 0%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85)
53.874 Points ∼60%
Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84)
28.012 Points ∼31% -48%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Average of class Smartphone (9 - 196, n=164, last 2 years)
50.7 runs/min ∼100% +88%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chome 81)
44.1 runs/min ∼87% +63%
Xiaomi Redmi 9 (Chrome 85)
28.1 runs/min ∼55% +4%
realme 6i (Chrome 81)
27.7 runs/min ∼55% +3%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85)
27 runs/min ∼53%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
27 runs/min ∼53% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chome 84)
15 runs/min ∼30% -44%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 194, n=205, last 2 years)
77.1 Points ∼100% +71%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81)
69 Points ∼89% +53%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85)
45 Points ∼58%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
45 Points ∼58% 0%
Average Mediatek Helio G85 (43 - 45, n=2)
44 Points ∼57% -2%
realme 6i (Chrome 81)
43 Points ∼56% -4%
Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84)
35 Points ∼45% -22%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81)
17303 Points ∼100% +68%
Average of class Smartphone (1986 - 58632, n=214, last 2 years)
16945 Points ∼98% +65%
realme 6i (Chrome 81)
10485 Points ∼61% +2%
Xiaomi Redmi 9 (Chrome 85)
10432 Points ∼60% +1%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85)
10299 Points ∼60%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
10299 Points ∼60% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84)
4976 Points ∼29% -52%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84)
9174.1 ms * ∼100% -135%
Average of class Smartphone (460 - 29635, n=217, last 2 years)
4277 ms * ∼47% -10%
Xiaomi Redmi 9 (Chrome 85)
4076.3 ms * ∼44% -4%
realme 6i (Chrome 81)
3937.5 ms * ∼43% -1%
Average Mediatek Helio G85 (3901 - 3939, n=2)
3920 ms * ∼43% -0%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85)
3901.3 ms * ∼43%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81)
2794.2 ms * ∼30% +28%

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

Xiaomi Redmi Note 9Xiaomi Redmi 9Xiaomi Redmi Note 9SSamsung Galaxy A21srealme 6iSony Xperia L4Average 64 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-23%
20%
-13%
4%
-22%
-24%
37%
Sequential Read 256KB
306.57
289.87
-5%
496.6
62%
307
0%
309.45
1%
293.4
-4%
274 (95.6 - 704, n=164)
-11%
725 (41.9 - 2037, n=282, last 2 years)
136%
Sequential Write 256KB
248.14
119.76
-52%
214.8
-13%
104.3
-58%
256.36
3%
165
-34%
178 (40 - 274, n=164)
-28%
312 (11.9 - 1321, n=282, last 2 years)
26%
Random Read 4KB
65.13
49.09
-25%
137
110%
77.2
19%
73.46
13%
61.2
-6%
58.3 (11.4 - 149, n=164)
-10%
129 (13.5 - 325, n=282, last 2 years)
98%
Random Write 4KB
146.94
60.71
-59%
123.6
-16%
89.5
-39%
150.87
3%
22.5
-85%
29 (3.4 - 147, n=164)
-80%
114 (4.97 - 330, n=282, last 2 years)
-22%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
84.37 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
84.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
0%
74.5 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-12%
80 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-5%
84.56 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
0%
83.5 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-1%
77.5 (21.1 - 108, n=143)
-8%
76 (13.4 - 154, n=184, last 2 years)
-10%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
63.51 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
65 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
2%
54.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-14%
66.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
5%
64.46 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
1%
62.5 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-2%
58.5 (11.2 - 83.3, n=143)
-8%
58.1 (1.7 - 83.3, n=184, last 2 years)
-9%
PUBG mobile
0510152025303540403940394039393940404039413941403540404039403840413940404040403940404036414039413940394040404139403740404038394040394041403941404039404040374040403940404040403542404036414039403940393939404040394139414035404040394038404139404040404039404040364140394139403940404041394037404040383940403940414039414040394040403740404039404040404035424040364140404040393940404041394040394040404040404040404038404040403940404038403941393940414038394040404039414040404040404040404040404040403841404040394039403939394040403941394140354040403940384041394040404040394040403641403941394039404040413940374040403839404039404140394140403940404037404040394040404040354240403641404040403939404040413940403940404040404040404040384040404039404040384039413939404140383940404040394140404040404040404040404040404038414040303030303030303030303030303030303029303030302931283029293031302931293130302929303030303029313029303030303030303030303030303030303028303030303030303030303030303030Tooltip
; Smooth: Ø39.6 (35-42)
; Balanced: Ø39.8 (38-41)
; HD: Ø29.9 (28-31)
Real Racing 3
051015202530354045505560575656565556595755526057504555586060595060585554525557545856546059525555565553545351555857575458605040585557605754555353555254545053525354545154555255505353515553525123445250435045514447515457516059383743505249555241495053525354505351Tooltip
: Ø53 (23-60)
Dead Trigger 2
0510152025303540455055605959606060606060606060606052606059575759605960595959595560606060606060605960585859606059585547596056555959605756596060606060606060606060606060606059606060606058586058606060605860606060606060606060606060606060606060606060605960606060Tooltip
: Ø59.3 (47-60)
A pleine charge
 35.8 °C35.1 °C34.2 °C 
 34.8 °C34 °C34.5 °C 
 33.5 °C32.4 °C32.2 °C 
Maximum: 35.8 °C
Moyenne: 34.1 °C
30.5 °C32.5 °C34.4 °C
30.3 °C31.2 °C33.5 °C
30.7 °C32.4 °C32.5 °C
Maximum: 34.4 °C
Moyenne: 32 °C
Alimentation (valeur maximale)  23.1 °C | Température ambiante de la pièce 21.8 °C | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 34.1 °C / 93 F, compared to the average of 32.9 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 35.8 °C / 96 F, compared to the average of 35.2 °C / 95 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 34.4 °C / 94 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.5 °C / 85 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2036.934.5252941.43121.939.4402241.75029.942.8632245.48019.343.710016.343.71251445.816016.951.320014.952.525014.155.93151058.84001163.150011.768.263010.97280011.973.710001180.1125010.279.7160011.478.9200012.879.5250012.980.9315012.581.740001384.9500013.184.5630013.478.2800015.775.21000013.576125001474.31600013.763.2SPL24.892.4N0.691.6median 13median 74.3Delta1.19.739.738.937.336.229.230.932.430.83237.323.624.521.72021.923.322.523.918.528.614.837.112.343.112.550.611.956.113.159.114.561.918.762.219.36718.269.216.46914.368.714.96814.664.715.466.316.165.116.769.717.772.818.664.819.450.320.352.763.728.779.518.1144.9median 16.4median 62.22.311hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseXiaomi Redmi Note 9Samsung Galaxy A21s
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (92.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (4.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.2% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.9% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.4% 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
» 23% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 71% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Samsung Galaxy A21s audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (79.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.3% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.1% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 57% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 33% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 73% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 21% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Consommation énergétique
Éteint/en veilledarklight 0.02 / 0.23 Watts
Au reposdarkmidlight 0.74 / 2.17 / 2.2 Watts
Fortement sollicité midlight 4.17 / 6.11 Watts
 color bar
Légende: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Currently we use the Metrahit Energy, a professional single phase power quality and energy measurement digital multimeter, for our measurements. Find out more about it here. All of our test methods can be found here.
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
5020 mAh		Xiaomi Redmi 9
5020 mAh		Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
5020 mAh		Samsung Galaxy A21s
5000 mAh		realme 6i
5000 mAh		Sony Xperia L4
3580 mAh		Average Mediatek Helio G85
 		Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-28%
-32%
-30%
23%
-24%
-6%
Idle Minimum *
0.74
1.4
-89%
1.5
-103%
1.5
-103%
0.37
50%
1.22 (0.74 - 1.7, n=2)
-65%
0.931 (0.37 - 2.5, n=233, last 2 years)
-26%
Idle Average *
2.17
1.7
22%
2.1
3%
2.1
3%
1.62
25%
2.54 (2.17 - 2.9, n=2)
-17%
1.842 (0.82 - 3.94, n=233, last 2 years)
15%
Idle Maximum *
2.2
2.1
5%
2.5
-14%
2.9
-32%
1.69
23%
2.6 (2.2 - 3, n=2)
-18%
2.12 (0.85 - 4.2, n=233, last 2 years)
4%
Load Average *
4.17
5.7
-37%
5.2
-25%
4.6
-10%
3.61
13%
4.74 (4.17 - 5.3, n=2)
-14%
4.44 (2.1 - 8.4, n=233, last 2 years)
-6%
Load Maximum *
6.11
8.5
-39%
7.5
-23%
6.6
-8%
5.9
3%
6.56 (6.11 - 7, n=2)
-7%
7.22 (3.16 - 12.3, n=233, last 2 years)
-18%

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

Autonomie
Au repos (module WiFi éteint, luminosité au minimum)
38h 14min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
14h 27min
En lecture de Big Buck Bunny encodé en H.264 1080p
18h 36min
Fortement sollicité (luminosité au maximum)
5h 14min
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
5020 mAh		Xiaomi Redmi 9
5020 mAh		Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
5020 mAh		Samsung Galaxy A21s
5000 mAh		realme 6i
5000 mAh		Sony Xperia L4
3580 mAh
Autonomie de la batterie
-2%
10%
-4%
52%
-10%
Reader / Idle
2294
2337
2%
2263
-1%
2009
-12%
H.264
1116
1171
5%
1269
14%
1087
-3%
WiFi v1.3
867
804
-7%
1187
37%
943
9%
1318
52%
783
-10%
Load
314
289
-8%
279
-11%
287
-9%

Points positifs

+ contraste de l'écran IPS 1080p
+ vitesse WLAN
+ design et qualité de construction
+ autonomie
+ emplacement triple SIM
+ puissance du SoC...

Points négatifs

- ...mais vitesse du stockage (eMMC)
- zone sombre autour du poinçon
- absence de vidéo UHD

Verdict - Très bonne entrée dans le monde du smartphone

En test : le Redmi Note 9. Modèle de test fourni par notebooksbilliger.de.
En test : le Redmi Note 9. Modèle de test fourni par notebooksbilliger.de.

Xiaomi met en avant son smartphone abordable du milieu de gamme par ces mots : "tout ce dont vous avez besoin". Le fabricant chinois de Shenzhen n'a pas tout à fait tort, le Redmi Note 9 fournissant une très bonne expérience à un prix d'environ 150 € - mais nous recommandons d'investir les 20 € supplémentaires pour la version 4 Go.

Ceux qui cherchent un smartphone abordable à moins de 200 € doivent absolument prendre en compte le Redmi Note 9.

Par rapport au Redmi 9, la version Note possède un meilleur haut-parleur et un meilleur appareil photo principal. L'écran IPS plus lumineux est plus contrasté et ses angles de vision sont plus larges, lui donnant l'avantage au quotidien. Et le Note 9 inclut un chargeur rapide par défaut.

Cependant, le Redmi Note 9 reste un smartphone d'entrée de gamme. De ce fait, il faut faire des compromis dans le choix du processeur, de la qualité des photos - surtout en ultra-grand-angle - et des vitesses du stockage et du WLAN.

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

Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 - 09/16/2020 v7
Marcus Herbrich

Châssis
87%
Clavier
67 / 75 → 89%
Dispositif de pointage
89%
Connectivité
50 / 70 → 72%
Poids
88%
Autonomie
91%
Écran
87%
Performances en jeu
14 / 64 → 22%
Performances dans les applications
64 / 86 → 74%
Chauffe
92%
Nuisance sonore
100%
Audio
77 / 90 → 85%
Appareil photo
66%
Moyenne
75%
80%
Smartphone - Moyenne compensée

Pricecompare

Mark Riege
Editor of the original article: Mark Riege - Translator - 210 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2018
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Revues et rapports de ordinateurs portatifs et smartphones, ordiphones > Critiques > Test du Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 : le meilleur smartphone de la série Redmi 9, avec quadruple appareil photo 64 MP
Marcus Herbrich, 2020-10- 2 (Update: 2020-10- 2)