Deutsch
English
Español
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
MagyarTest du Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 : le meilleur smartphone de la série Redmi 9, avec quadruple appareil photo 64 MP
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 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.53" | 2340x1080 | |
| 78 % | 09/20 | Xiaomi Redmi 9 Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2 | 198 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 6.53" | 2340x1080 | |
| 81 % | 06/20 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S SD 720G, Adreno 618 | 209 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
| 76 % | 09/20 | Samsung Galaxy A21s Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2 | 192 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 6.50" | 1600x720 | |
| 78 % | 07/20 | realme 6i Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2 | 199 g | 128 GB eMMC Flash | 6.50" | 1600x720 | |
| 75 % | 10/20 | Sony Xperia L4 Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320 | 178 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.20" | 1680x720 |
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
| Networking | |
| iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (5.59 - 1599, n=301, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 9 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Sony Xperia L4 | |
| realme 6i | |
| iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (15.5 - 1414, n=301, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 9 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Sony Xperia L4 | |
| realme 6i | |
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
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 Ø5.5
ΔE Greyscale 2.2 | 0.64-98 Ø5.7
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)
| 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 15315 (minimum : 5 - maximum : 2500000) Hz dans le cas où une MDI était active. | |||
Temps de réponse de l'écran
| ↔ 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. » 48 % des appareils testés affichent de meilleures performances. Cela signifie que les latences relevées sont similaires à la moyenne (23.9 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. » 44 % des appareils testés affichent de meilleures performances. Cela signifie que les latences relevées sont similaires à la moyenne (37.8 ms) de tous les appareils testés. | ||
| Geekbench 5.3 | |
| 64 Bit Single-Core Score (Classer selon les valeurs) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 9 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| realme 6i | |
| Sony Xperia L4 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G85 (354 - 369, n=3) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (58 - 1604, n=248, last 2 years) | |
| 64 Bit Multi-Core Score (Classer selon les valeurs) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 9 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| realme 6i | |
| Sony Xperia L4 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G85 (1259 - 1351, n=3) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (248 - 4455, n=248, last 2 years) | |
| Vulkan Score 5.3 (Classer selon les valeurs) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 9 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G85 (1163 - 1179, n=2) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (72 - 6524, n=143, last 2 years) | |
| OpenCL Score 5.3 (Classer selon les valeurs) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 9 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G85 (1185 - 1233, n=3) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (255 - 7514, n=146, last 2 years) | |
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (Classer selon les valeurs) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 9 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| realme 6i | |
| Sony Xperia L4 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G85 (11421 - 11889, n=2) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2689 - 19989, n=212, last 2 years) | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (Classer selon les valeurs) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 9 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| realme 6i | |
| Sony Xperia L4 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G85 (8655 - 8698, n=3) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (82 - 15299, n=259, last 2 years) | |
| VRMark - Amber Room (Classer selon les valeurs) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 9 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
| realme 6i | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G85 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (421 - 7649, n=56, last 2 years) | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (12.4 - 161, n=186, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 9 (Chrome 85) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G85 (29.2 - 30, n=2) | |
| realme 6i (Chrome 81) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 375, n=198, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
| realme 6i (Chrome 81) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 9 (Chrome 85) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G85 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (9 - 196, n=171, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chome 81) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 9 (Chrome 85) | |
| realme 6i (Chrome 81) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G85 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chome 84) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - --- | |
| Average of class Smartphone (20 - 194, n=205, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 9 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G85 (43 - 45, n=2) | |
| realme 6i (Chrome 81) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (1986 - 58632, n=213, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
| realme 6i (Chrome 81) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 9 (Chrome 85) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G85 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi 9 (Chrome 85) | |
| realme 6i (Chrome 81) | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G85 (3901 - 3939, n=2) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (460 - 29635, n=215, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
* ... Moindre est la valeur, meilleures sont les performances
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | Xiaomi Redmi 9 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | Samsung Galaxy A21s | realme 6i | Sony Xperia L4 | Average 64 GB eMMC Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -23% | 20% | -13% | 4% | -22% | -24% | 47% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 306.57 | 289.87 -5% | 496.6 62% | 307 0% | 309.45 1% | 293.4 -4% | 274 (95.6 - 704, n=172) -11% | 787 (41.9 - 2037, n=291, last 2 years) 157% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 248.14 | 119.76 -52% | 214.8 -13% | 104.3 -58% | 256.36 3% | 165 -34% | 178 (40 - 274, n=172) -28% | 350 (11.9 - 1321, n=291, last 2 years) 41% |
| Random Read 4KB | 65.13 | 49.09 -25% | 137 110% | 77.2 19% | 73.46 13% | 61.2 -6% | 58.6 (11.4 - 149, n=172) -10% | 140 (13.5 - 325, n=291, last 2 years) 115% |
| Random Write 4KB | 146.94 | 60.71 -59% | 123.6 -16% | 89.5 -39% | 150.87 3% | 22.5 -85% | 28.7 (3.4 - 147, n=172) -80% | 126 (5.2 - 330, n=291, last 2 years) -14% |
| 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% | 77.4 (21.1 - 108, n=144) -8% | 76.2 (13.4 - 154, n=164, 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% | 58.3 (11.2 - 83.3, n=144) -8% | 58.5 (8.4 - 83.3, n=164, last 2 years) -8% |
PUBG mobile
Real Racing 3
Dead Trigger 2
(+) 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 52.9 °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.
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
» 24% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 71% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, 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
» 58% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 32% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 74% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 20% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%
| Éteint/en veille |   0.02 / 0.23 Watts |
| Au repos |  0.74 / 2.17 / 2.2 Watts |
| Fortement sollicité |
4.17 / 6.11 Watts |
    
| |
| 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% | 0.954 (0.37 - 2.5, n=233, last 2 years) -29% | |
| 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% | 1.813 (0.65 - 3.94, n=233, last 2 years) 16% | |
| Idle Maximum * | 2.2 | 2.1 5% | 2.5 -14% | 2.9 -32% | 1.69 23% | 2.6 (2.2 - 3, n=2) -18% | 2.06 (0.69 - 4.2, n=233, last 2 years) 6% | |
| 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% | 7.29 (3.68 - 12.3, n=233, last 2 years) -19% |
* ... Moindre est la valeur, meilleures sont les performances
| 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
Points négatifs
Verdict - Très bonne entrée dans le monde du smartphone
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
Pricecompare
