Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Chinese
MagyarTest: Huawei Mate 40 Pro - Topptelefon med ett visst handikapp (Sammanfattning)
Testgrupp
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 90.6 % | 11/2020 | Huawei Mate 40 Pro Kirin 9000, Mali-G78 MP24 | 212 g | 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.76" | 2772x1344 | |
| 89 % | 12/2019 | Huawei Mate 30 Pro Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16 | 198 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.53" | 2400x1176 | |
| 89.6 % | 09/2020 | Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11 | 208 g | 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.90" | 3088x1440 | |
| 89.8 % | 11/2020 | Apple iPhone 12 Pro A14, A14 Bionic GPU | 189 g | 256 GB NVMe | 6.10" | 2532x1170 | |
| 88.2 % | 04/2020 | Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro SD 865, Adreno 650 | 208 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2340x1080 | |
| 86.1 % | 03/2020 | Oppo Find X2 Pro SD 865, Adreno 650 | 202 g | 512 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.70" | 3168x1440 |
Image Comparison
Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the position on touchscreens. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.
Wide angleWide angleUltra wide angleZoom (5x)Low light
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 95 %
Mitt på batteriet: 778 cd/m²
Kontrast: ∞:1 (Svärta: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.4 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 2.5 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
97.5% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.22
| Huawei Mate 40 Pro OLED, 2772x1344, 6.76 | Huawei Mate 30 Pro OLED, 2400x1176, 6.53 | Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra Dynamic AMOLED, 3088x1440, 6.90 | Apple iPhone 12 Pro OLED, 2532x1170, 6.10 | Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.67 | Oppo Find X2 Pro AMOLED, 3168x1440, 6.70 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -31% | -65% | 10% | 21% | -81% | |
| Brightness middle | 778 | 592 -24% | 860 11% | 822 6% | 753 -3% | 778 0% |
| Brightness | 782 | 605 -23% | 878 12% | 820 5% | 762 -3% | 775 -1% |
| Brightness Distribution | 95 | 96 1% | 96 1% | 99 4% | 96 1% | 99 4% |
| Black Level * | ||||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.4 | 2.5 -79% | 4.5 -221% | 1.2 14% | 0.9 36% | 4.4 -214% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 3.5 | 5.5 -57% | 10.4 -197% | 3.5 -0% | 1.6 54% | 8.7 -149% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.5 | 2.6 -4% | 2.4 4% | 1.8 28% | 1.5 40% | 5.6 -124% |
| Gamma | 2.22 99% | 2.16 102% | 2 110% | 2.18 101% | 2.24 98% | 2.26 97% |
| CCT | 6530 100% | 6173 105% | 6466 101% | 6337 103% | 6415 101% | 7250 90% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 367.6 Hz | ≤ 99 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 367.6 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 99 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 367.6 Hz is relatively high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. However, there are reports that some users are still sensitive to PWM at 500 Hz and above, so be aware. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17853 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 1.2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 1.2 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 7 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21.5 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 3.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 1.6 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 9 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms). | ||
| Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sort by value) | |
| Huawei Mate 40 Pro | |
| Apple iPhone 12 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
| Average HiSilicon Kirin 9000 () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (177 - 6114, n=57, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench 3.0 | |
| on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
| Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra | |
| Apple iPhone 12 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 165, n=183, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra | |
| Apple iPhone 12 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
| Average of class Smartphone (9.2 - 363, n=183, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra | |
| Apple iPhone 12 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 158, n=183, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra | |
| Apple iPhone 12 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.2 - 279, n=183, last 2 years) | |
| AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra | |
| Apple iPhone 12 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
| VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value) | |
| Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2523 - 10071, n=11, last 2 years) | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone 12 Pro (Safari Mobile 14) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 351, n=171, last 2 years) | |
| Huawei Mate 40 Pro (Huawei Browser 11) | |
| Average HiSilicon Kirin 9000 () | |
| Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra (Chrome 84) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone 12 Pro (Safari Mobile 14) | |
| Huawei Mate 40 Pro (Huawei Browser 11) | |
| Average HiSilicon Kirin 9000 () | |
| Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra (Chrome 84) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Apple iPhone 12 Pro (Safari Mobile 14) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (14.9 - 445, n=155, last 2 years) | |
| Huawei Mate 40 Pro (Huawei Browser 11) | |
| Average HiSilicon Kirin 9000 () | |
| Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Apple iPhone 12 Pro (Safari Mobile 14) | |
| Huawei Mate 40 Pro (Huawei Browser 11) | |
| Average HiSilicon Kirin 9000 () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (39 - 304, n=120, last 2 years) | |
| Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra (Chrome 84) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone 12 Pro (Safari Mobile 14) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 89112, n=214, last 2 years) | |
| Huawei Mate 40 Pro (Huawei Browser 11) | |
| Average HiSilicon Kirin 9000 () | |
| Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra (Chrome 84) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra (Chrome 84) | |
| Oppo Find X2 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
| Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| Huawei Mate 40 Pro (Huawei Browser 11) | |
| Average HiSilicon Kirin 9000 () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (388 - 9999, n=171, last 2 years) | |
| Apple iPhone 12 Pro (Safari Mobile 14) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Huawei Mate 40 Pro | Huawei Mate 30 Pro | Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra | Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro | Oppo Find X2 Pro | Average 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -15% | -22% | -21% | -33% | -3% | -17% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 2037 | 1781 -13% | 1782 -13% | 1739 -15% | 1606 -21% | 1759 ? -14% | 1513 ? -26% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 1321 | 401.8 -70% | 802 -39% | 750 -43% | 729 -45% | 1130 ? -14% | 1121 ? -15% |
| Random Read 4KB | 325 | 226.4 -30% | 186.7 -43% | 264.9 -18% | 202.6 -38% | 282 ? -13% | 248 ? -24% |
| Random Write 4KB | 277.6 | 259.2 -7% | 217.7 -22% | 258.5 -7% | 205 -26% | 309 ? 11% | 273 ? -2% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 70.2 ? | 82.5 ? 18% | 65.6 ? -7% | 75.9 ? 8% | |||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 60.9 ? | 69.2 ? 14% | 55.6 ? -9% | 61.9 ? 2% |
| 3DMark - Wild Life Stress Test Stability | |
| Huawei P40 Pro | |
| Google Pixel 5 | |
| Apple iPhone 12 Pro | |
| Huawei Mate 40 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra | |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 31.6 °C / 89 F, compared to the average of 35 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 56 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 29.5 °C / 85 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
Huawei Mate 40 Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 18.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.9% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (14.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 0% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 99% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 13% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 83% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.1% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (1.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (14.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 1% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 15% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 81% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| Av/Standby |   0.01 / 0.12 Watt |
| Låg belastning |  1.01 / 2.12 / 2.15 Watt |
| Hög belastning |
3.94 / 6.53 Watt |
    
| |
| Huawei Mate 40 Pro 4400 mAh | Huawei Mate 30 Pro 4500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 4500 mAh | Apple iPhone 12 Pro 2815 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro 4500 mAh | Oppo Find X2 Pro 4260 mAh | Average HiSilicon Kirin 9000 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 9% | 7% | 37% | 18% | -58% | 0% | -1% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 1.01 | 0.87 14% | 0.65 36% | 0.64 37% | 0.61 40% | 1.47 -46% | 1.01 ? -0% | 0.897 ? 11% |
| Idle Average * | 2.12 | 1.75 17% | 1.06 50% | 1.22 42% | 1.19 44% | 3.43 -62% | 2.12 ? -0% | 1.453 ? 31% |
| Idle Maximum * | 2.15 | 1.83 15% | 1.49 31% | 1.24 42% | 1.23 43% | 3.52 -64% | 2.15 ? -0% | 1.626 ? 24% |
| Load Average * | 3.94 | 3.85 2% | 4.91 -25% | 3.04 23% | 4.18 -6% | 6.2 -57% | 3.94 ? -0% | 5.56 ? -41% |
| Load Maximum * | 6.53 | 6.64 -2% | 10.29 -58% | 3.86 41% | 8.53 -31% | 10.63 -63% | 6.53 ? -0% | 8.35 ? -28% |
* ... smaller is better
| Huawei Mate 40 Pro 4400 mAh | Huawei Mate 30 Pro 4500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 4500 mAh | Apple iPhone 12 Pro 2815 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro 4500 mAh | Oppo Find X2 Pro 4260 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 25% | 7% | 31% | 21% | 7% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1255 | 2174 73% | 1223 -3% | 2091 67% | 2133 70% | |
| H.264 | 999 | 1098 10% | 993 -1% | 1117 12% | 973 -3% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 609 | 823 35% | 644 6% | 781 28% | 865 42% | 654 7% |
| Load | 270 | 219 -19% | 338 25% | 311 15% | 198 -27% |
För
Emot
Omdöme - Högpresterande smartphone från Huawei
Läs den fullständiga versionen av den här recensionen på engelska här.
Från ett tekniskt perspektiv är Huawei Mate 40 Pro en utmärkt utrustad smartphone. Skärmen är inte riktigt lika ljusstark som på konkurrenternas mest avancerade enheter, men den behöver verkligen inte skämmas för den. Huawei visar i synnerhet upp musklerna när det kommer till telefonens SoC, även om vi inte lyckades köra alla testerna då vår testenhet inte tillät detta.
Huaweis smartphone klarar sig också bra när det kommer till positionering och samtalskvalitet. Trippelkameran övertygade i vårt test. Kommunikationsmodulerna är toppmoderna, men de sänker också batteritiden och berövar därmed Mate 40 Pro på en av sina nyckelkompetenser. Framtida uppdateringar får visa huruvida detta är på grund av chippets arkitektur eller ifall det rör sig om ett drivrutinsproblem.
Tekniskt sett är Huawei Mate 40 Pro en av de bästa telefonerna som går att få tag på just nu, men den behöver hantera några mjukvarubegränsningar.
Högtalarna har blivit bättre och låter nu riktigt bra. Men på grund av den rådande handelsblockaden saknas tyvärr inte bara Googles tjänster utan också ljudkodekar från Qualcomm. Mate 40 Pro har åtminstone fått en DRM-certifiering trots de svåra omständigheterna.
Huawei Mate 40 Pro
-
08/31/2022 v7
Daniel Schmidt
Pricecompare
