Notebookcheck

Test: Samsung Galaxy Note 7 (sammanfattning)

Daniel Schmidt, 10/03/2016

Explosiv kombination. Nu är Note äntligen tillgänglig i Europa igen. Lanseringen har dock överskuggats av tekniska problem och global återkallning. Vi har ändå tittat närmare på Galaxy Note 7.

Samsung Galaxy Note 7 (Galaxy Note Serie)
Processor
Samsung Exynos 8890 Octa 2.6 GHz
Grafikkort
ARM Mali-T880 MP12 - 4096 MB
Minne
4096 MB 
, LPDDR4
Skärm
5.7 tum 16:9, 2560x1440 pixlar 515 PPI, Touch Display, native pen support, Dual Edge Super AMOLED, Gorilla Glass 5, HDR, glansig: ja
Hårddisk
64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash, 64 GB 
, 52.4 GB ledigt
Anslutningar
1 USB 3.0, Ljudanslutningar: 3,5 mm headset, Kortläsare: MicroSD upp till 256 GB (SDHC, SDXC), 1 Fingeravtrycksläsare, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensorer: Barometer, fingeravtrycksläsare, gyroskop, geomagnetisk sensor, Hallsensor, pulsmätare, Iris-scanner, närhet, RGB-ljussensor, Ant+, BeiDou, Galileo
Nätverk
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 4.2, GSM/GPRS/Edge (850, 900, 1800 och 1900 MHz), UMTS/HSPA+ (Bands 1, 2, 4, 5 och 8), LTE Cat. 9 (Band 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28 (alla FDD) samt band 38, 39, 40 och 41 (alla TDD)), LTE, GPS
Storlek
höjd x bredd x djup (i mm) 7.9 x 153.5 x 73.9
Batteri
3500 mAh Litiumjon, Samtalstid 3G (enligt tillverkaren): 26 tim
Operativsystem
Android 6.0 Marshmallow
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix Dual-Pixel autofokus, brännvidd f/1.7, optisk bildstabilisering (OIS)
Secondary Camera: 5 MPix extra 3,7 MP infraröd sensor, som används som Iris-scanner
Övrigt
Högtalare: Mono, Tangentbord: virtuellt, två OTG-adaptrar, närdel, USB 2.0-kabel, headset, S Pen, Samsung Apps, Edge Launcher, Grace UI, 24 Månader Garanti, USB Type-C, IP68-klassning, SAR huvud: 0.249 W/kg, SAR kropp: 1.280 W/kg, fanless
Vikt
170 g, Strömförsörjning: 60 g
Pris
849 Kr

 

Size Comparison

Networking
iperf Server (receive) TCP 1 m
Acer Liquid Jade Primo
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 32 GB eMMC Flash
551 MBit/s ∼100% +91%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
303 MBit/s ∼55% +5%
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
288 MBit/s ∼52%
OnePlus 3
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
286 MBit/s ∼52% -1%
iperf Client (transmit) TCP 1 m
Acer Liquid Jade Primo
Adreno 418, 808 MSM8992, 32 GB eMMC Flash
451 MBit/s ∼100% +299%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
290 MBit/s ∼64% +157%
OnePlus 3
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
256 MBit/s ∼57% +127%
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
113 MBit/s ∼25%
Garmin Edge 500
Garmin Edge 500
Garmin Edge 500
Garmin Edge 500
Garmin Edge 500
Garmin Edge 500
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Samsung Galaxy Note 7

Image Comparison

Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the zoom step. 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.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
554
cd/m²
544
cd/m²
497
cd/m²
545
cd/m²
544
cd/m²
467
cd/m²
543
cd/m²
542
cd/m²
473
cd/m²
Distribution av ljusstyrkan
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Max: 554 cd/m² Medel: 523.2 cd/m² Minimum: 1.77 cd/m²
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 84 %
Mitt på batteriet: 544 cd/m²
Kontrast: ∞:1 (Svärta: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.9 | - Ø
ΔE Greyscale 1.8 | - Ø
100% sRGB (Argyll) 83.92% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll)
Gamma: 2.12
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Dual Edge Super AMOLED, 2560x1440, 5.7
Samsung Galaxy Note Edge
Super AMOLED, 2560x1600, 5.6
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
Super AMOLED, 2560x1440, 5.7
Huawei P9 Plus
AMOLED, 1920x1080, 5.5
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
AMOLED, 2560x1440, 5.7
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5
LG Stylus 2
IPS, 1280x720, 5.7
LG V10
Quantum-IPS, 2560x1440, 5.7
Screen
-35%
-1%
-100%
-25%
-38%
-132%
-117%
Brightness
523
474
-9%
397
-24%
366
-30%
297
-43%
560
7%
374
-28%
431
-18%
Brightness Distribution
84
94
12%
91
8%
87
4%
93
11%
91
8%
92
10%
93
11%
Black Level *
0.46
0.25
0.22
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
1.9
2.24
-18%
1.49
22%
5.1
-168%
2.67
-41%
3.55
-87%
6.1
-221%
5.18
-173%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
1.8
4.02
-123%
1.98
-10%
5.5
-206%
2.81
-56%
3.88
-116%
7
-289%
6.94
-286%
Gamma
2.12 113%
3.07 78%
2.19 110%
2.24 107%
2.08 115%
2.2 109%
2.25 107%
2.24 107%
CCT
6449 101%
6476 100%
6382 102%
7388 88%
6379 102%
7280 89%
8350 78%
8091 80%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
83.92
66.31
-21%
59.05
-30%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
100
99.79
0%
92.8
-7%
Contrast
1267
1480
2045

* ... smaller is better

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
4.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 2 ms rise
↘ 2.4 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 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 2 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (26.9 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
5.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 2.8 ms rise
↘ 2.8 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 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 1 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (43.4 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM detected 59.52 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 59.52 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 59.52 Hz is very low, so the flickering may cause eyestrain and headaches after extended use.

In comparison: 58 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 5069 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

AnTuTu Benchmark v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
133845 Points ∼59%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
128749 Points ∼56% -4%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
133626 Points ∼59% 0%
HTC 10
131866 Points ∼58% -1%
Huawei P9
95743 Points ∼42% -28%
OnePlus 3
142090 Points ∼62% +6%
LG Stylus 2
28232 Points ∼12% -79%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
94122 Points ∼41% -30%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
1532 Points ∼51%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
2002 (min: 1539) Points ∼66% +31%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
1552 Points ∼52% +1%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
1697 Points ∼56% +11%
HTC 10
1512 Points ∼50% -1%
Huawei P9
2510 Points ∼83% +64%
OnePlus 3
1789 Points ∼59% +17%
LG Stylus 2
728 Points ∼24% -52%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
2670 Points ∼35%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
3015 (min: 2895) Points ∼39% +13%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
1471 Points ∼19% -45%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
4557 Points ∼59% +71%
HTC 10
4581 Points ∼59% +72%
Huawei P9
1080 Points ∼14% -60%
OnePlus 3
4633 Points ∼60% +74%
LG Stylus 2
42 Points ∼1% -98%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
2292 Points ∼46%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
2710 (min: 2421) Points ∼54% +18%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
1488 Points ∼30% -35%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
3316 Points ∼67% +45%
HTC 10
3157 Points ∼63% +38%
Huawei P9
1237 Points ∼25% -46%
OnePlus 3
3424 Points ∼69% +49%
LG Stylus 2
53 Points ∼1% -98%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
19834 Points ∼29%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
19610 Points ∼28% -1%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
17380 Points ∼25% -12%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
12854 Points ∼19% -35%
HTC 10
20344 Points ∼29% +3%
Huawei P9
15517 Points ∼22% -22%
OnePlus 3
21771 Points ∼32% +10%
LG Stylus 2
9085 Points ∼13% -54%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
23431 Points ∼5%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
33031 Points ∼7% +41%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
26964 Points ∼6% +15%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
41615 Points ∼9% +78%
HTC 10
30061 Points ∼7% +28%
Huawei P9
21577 Points ∼5% -8%
OnePlus 3
34023 Points ∼7% +45%
LG Stylus 2
3744 Points ∼1% -84%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
22523 Points ∼11%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
28671 Points ∼15% +27%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
24020 Points ∼12% +7%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
27795 Points ∼14% +23%
HTC 10
27176 Points ∼14% +21%
Huawei P9
19854 Points ∼10% -12%
OnePlus 3
30241 Points ∼15% +34%
LG Stylus 2
4307 Points ∼2% -81%
Geekbench 4.0
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
5213 Points ∼19%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
5503 Points ∼20% +6%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
4286 Points ∼16% -18%
Huawei P9
4904 Points ∼18% -6%
OnePlus 3
4097 Points ∼15% -21%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
1865 Points ∼33%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
1840 Points ∼33% -1%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
2503 Points ∼45% +34%
Huawei P9
1755 Points ∼31% -6%
OnePlus 3
1754 Points ∼31% -6%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
80 fps ∼6%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
81 fps ∼6% +1%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
78.9 fps ∼6% -1%
HTC 10
73 fps ∼6% -9%
Huawei P9
40 fps ∼3% -50%
OnePlus 3
89 fps ∼7% +11%
LG Stylus 2
5.1 fps ∼0% -94%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
27.11 fps ∼2% -66%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
52 fps ∼11%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
51 fps ∼11% -2%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
59 fps ∼13% +13%
HTC 10
43 fps ∼9% -17%
Huawei P9
43 fps ∼9% -17%
OnePlus 3
60 fps ∼13% +15%
LG Stylus 2
4.9 fps ∼1% -91%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
18.75 fps ∼4% -64%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
38 fps ∼7%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
38 fps ∼7% 0%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
18 fps ∼3% -53%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
38.4 fps ∼7% +1%
HTC 10
39 fps ∼7% +3%
Huawei P9
18 fps ∼3% -53%
OnePlus 3
47 fps ∼9% +24%
LG Stylus 2
3.9 fps ∼1% -90%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
17.54 fps ∼3% -54%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
25 fps ∼7%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
27 fps ∼7% +8%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
11 fps ∼3% -56%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
38.4 fps ∼11% +54%
HTC 10
24 fps ∼7% -4%
Huawei P9
19 fps ∼5% -24%
OnePlus 3
46 fps ∼13% +84%
LG Stylus 2
1.8 fps ∼0% -93%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
11.81 fps ∼3% -53%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
26 fps ∼6%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
28 fps ∼7% +8%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
28 fps ∼7% +8%
HTC 10
24 fps ∼6% -8%
Huawei P9
10 fps ∼2% -62%
OnePlus 3
31 fps ∼7% +19%
LG Stylus 2
fps ∼0% -100%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
14 fps ∼8%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
15 fps ∼9% +7%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
28 fps ∼16% +100%
HTC 10
14 fps ∼8% 0%
Huawei P9
11 fps ∼6% -21%
OnePlus 3
30 fps ∼17% +114%
LG Stylus 2
fps ∼0% -100%
GFXBench 4.0
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
15 fps ∼4%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
15 fps ∼4% 0%
HTC 10
18 fps ∼5% +20%
Huawei P9
6.5 fps ∼2% -57%
OnePlus 3
18 fps ∼5% +20%
LG Stylus 2
fps ∼0% -100%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
7.9 fps ∼0%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
7.9 fps ∼0% 0%
HTC 10
10 fps ∼0% +27%
Huawei P9
7.1 fps ∼0% -10%
OnePlus 3
18 fps ∼1% +128%
LG Stylus 2
fps ∼0% -100%
PCMark for Android - Work performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
5115 Points ∼62%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
4660 Points ∼56% -9%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
5113 Points ∼62% 0%
HTC 10
5809 Points ∼70% +14%
Huawei P9
7058 Points ∼85% +38%
OnePlus 3
7101 Points ∼86% +39%
LG Stylus 2
4030 Points ∼49% -21%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
1101 Points ∼71%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
994 Points ∼64% -10%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
998 Points ∼65% -9%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
1199 Points ∼78% +9%
HTC 10
928 Points ∼60% -16%
Huawei P9
1029 Points ∼67% -7%
OnePlus 3
1112 Points ∼72% +1%
LG Stylus 2
1008 Points ∼65% -8%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
837 Points ∼54% -24%
Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
4273 Points ∼50%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
2203 Points ∼26% -48%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
2476 Points ∼29% -42%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
4299 Points ∼50% +1%
HTC 10
5009 Points ∼58% +17%
Huawei P9
1583 Points ∼18% -63%
OnePlus 3
4813 Points ∼56% +13%
LG Stylus 2
324 Points ∼4% -92%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
2040 Points ∼24% -52%
Memory (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
2532 Points ∼57%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
2072 Points ∼47% -18%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
1138 Points ∼26% -55%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
1124 Points ∼25% -56%
HTC 10
1772 Points ∼40% -30%
Huawei P9
2627 Points ∼59% +4%
OnePlus 3
2052 Points ∼46% -19%
LG Stylus 2
462 Points ∼10% -82%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
1945 Points ∼44% -23%
System (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
3994 Points ∼61%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
4080 Points ∼62% +2%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
3305 Points ∼50% -17%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
3925 Points ∼60% -2%
HTC 10
2806 Points ∼43% -30%
Huawei P9
3930 Points ∼60% -2%
OnePlus 3
3537 Points ∼54% -11%
LG Stylus 2
914 Points ∼14% -77%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
1386 Points ∼21% -65%
Overall (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
2626 Points ∼69%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
2074 Points ∼55% -21%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
1746 Points ∼46% -34%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
2206 Points ∼58% -16%
HTC 10
2193 Points ∼58% -16%
Huawei P9
2025 Points ∼53% -23%
OnePlus 3
2496 Points ∼66% -5%
LG Stylus 2
609 Points ∼16% -77%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
1465 Points ∼39% -44%
Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
714 Points ∼38%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
733 Points ∼39% +3%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
858 Points ∼46% +20%
HTC 10
608 Points ∼32% -15%
Huawei P9
328 Points ∼18% -54%
OnePlus 3
631 Points ∼34% -12%
Lightmark - 1920x1080 1080p (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
13.33 fps ∼36%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
13.31 fps ∼36% 0%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
6.6 fps ∼18% -50%
Huawei P9
7.9 fps ∼22% -41%
OnePlus 3
23.32 fps ∼64% +75%

Legend

 
Samsung Galaxy Note 7 Samsung Exynos 8890 Octa, ARM Mali-T880 MP12, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge Samsung Exynos 8890 Octa, ARM Mali-T880 MP12, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A Samsung Exynos 7420 Octa, ARM Mali-T760 MP8, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
 
Apple iPhone 6S Plus Apple A9, Apple A9 / PowerVR GT7600, Apple AP0064K (iPhone NVMe)
 
HTC 10 Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 MSM8996, Qualcomm Adreno 530, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
Huawei P9 HiSilicon Kirin 955, ARM Mali-T880 MP4, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
OnePlus 3 Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 MSM8996, Qualcomm Adreno 530, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
 
LG Stylus 2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 410 MSM8916, Qualcomm Adreno 306, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 810 MSM8994, Qualcomm Adreno 430, 32 GB eMMC Flash
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
177 Points ∼24%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
163 Points ∼22% -8%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
96 Points ∼13% -46%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, Apple AP0064K (iPhone NVMe)
190 Points ∼25% +7%
HTC 10
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
108 Points ∼14% -39%
Huawei P9
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash
128 Points ∼17% -28%
OnePlus 3
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
122 Points ∼16% -31%
LG Stylus 2
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 16 GB eMMC Flash
51 Points ∼7% -71%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 32 GB eMMC Flash
113 Points ∼15% -36%
JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
61.3 Points ∼18%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
75.12 Points ∼23% +23%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
48.821 Points ∼15% -20%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, Apple AP0064K (iPhone NVMe)
118.7 Points ∼36% +94%
HTC 10
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
52.1 Points ∼16% -15%
Huawei P9
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash
68.4 Points ∼20% +12%
OnePlus 3
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
54.4 Points ∼16% -11%
LG Stylus 2
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 16 GB eMMC Flash
17.8 Points ∼5% -71%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 32 GB eMMC Flash
46 Points ∼14% -25%
BaseMark OS II - Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
1101 Points ∼71%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
994 Points ∼64% -10%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
998 Points ∼65% -9%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, Apple AP0064K (iPhone NVMe)
1199 Points ∼78% +9%
HTC 10
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
928 Points ∼60% -16%
Huawei P9
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash
1029 Points ∼67% -7%
OnePlus 3
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
1112 Points ∼72% +1%
LG Stylus 2
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 16 GB eMMC Flash
1008 Points ∼65% -8%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 32 GB eMMC Flash
837 Points ∼54% -24%
Octane V2 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
12579 Points ∼25%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
13191 Points ∼27% +5%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
7534 Points ∼15% -40%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, Apple AP0064K (iPhone NVMe)
15967 Points ∼32% +27%
HTC 10
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
8905 Points ∼18% -29%
Huawei P9
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash
11783 Points ∼24% -6%
OnePlus 3
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
9155 Points ∼18% -27%
LG Stylus 2
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 16 GB eMMC Flash
2742 Points ∼6% -78%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 32 GB eMMC Flash
8059 Points ∼16% -36%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
2569.1 ms * ∼4%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
2564.1 ms * ∼4% -0%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
5089.2 ms * ∼9% -98%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, Apple AP0064K (iPhone NVMe)
1743 ms * ∼3% +32%
HTC 10
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
3146.3 ms * ∼5% -22%
Huawei P9
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash
2922.6 ms * ∼5% -14%
OnePlus 3
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
2920.7 ms * ∼5% -14%
LG Stylus 2
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 16 GB eMMC Flash
12713 ms * ∼21% -395%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 32 GB eMMC Flash
5552.9 ms * ∼9% -116%

* ... smaller is better

AndroBench 3-5
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
43.84 MB/s ∼50%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
50.36 MB/s ∼58% +15%
HTC 10
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
65.44 MB/s ∼75% +49%
Huawei P9
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash
24.83 MB/s ∼28% -43%
LG Stylus 2
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 16 GB eMMC Flash
49.73 MB/s ∼57% +13%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
72.45 MB/s ∼75%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
76.43 MB/s ∼79% +5%
HTC 10
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
83.3 MB/s ∼86% +15%
Huawei P9
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash
55.05 MB/s ∼57% -24%
LG Stylus 2
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 16 GB eMMC Flash
74.9 MB/s ∼78% +3%
Random Write 4KB (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
14.72 MB/s ∼10%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
15.79 MB/s ∼10% +7%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
20.42 MB/s ∼13% +39%
HTC 10
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
15.89 MB/s ∼10% +8%
Huawei P9
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash
47.45 MB/s ∼31% +222%
OnePlus 3
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
18.23 MB/s ∼12% +24%
LG Stylus 2
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 16 GB eMMC Flash
7.3 MB/s ∼5% -50%
Xiaomi Mi 5
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
13.61 MB/s ∼9% -8%
Random Read 4KB (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
82.68 MB/s ∼48%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
86.71 MB/s ∼50% +5%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
90.32 MB/s ∼52% +9%
HTC 10
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
29.92 MB/s ∼17% -64%
Huawei P9
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash
39 MB/s ∼23% -53%
OnePlus 3
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
137.62 MB/s ∼80% +66%
LG Stylus 2
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 16 GB eMMC Flash
9.8 MB/s ∼6% -88%
Xiaomi Mi 5
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
106.78 MB/s ∼62% +29%
Sequential Write 256KB (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
135.24 MB/s ∼66%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
145.11 MB/s ∼70% +7%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
150.05 MB/s ∼73% +11%
HTC 10
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
115.56 MB/s ∼56% -15%
Huawei P9
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash
72.19 MB/s ∼35% -47%
OnePlus 3
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
153.3 MB/s ∼74% +13%
LG Stylus 2
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 16 GB eMMC Flash
75.9 MB/s ∼37% -44%
Xiaomi Mi 5
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
159.29 MB/s ∼77% +18%
Sequential Read 256KB (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
484.6 MB/s ∼61%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
487.34 MB/s ∼61% +1%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
385.39 MB/s ∼49% -20%
HTC 10
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
275.09 MB/s ∼35% -43%
Huawei P9
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash
281.26 MB/s ∼35% -42%
OnePlus 3
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
408.71 MB/s ∼52% -16%
LG Stylus 2
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 16 GB eMMC Flash
130.3 MB/s ∼16% -73%
Xiaomi Mi 5
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
459.64 MB/s ∼58% -5%
BaseMark OS II - Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
1101 Points ∼71%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
994 Points ∼64% -10%
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
Mali-T760 MP8, 7420 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
998 Points ∼65% -9%
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
A9 / PowerVR GT7600, A9, Apple AP0064K (iPhone NVMe)
1199 Points ∼78% +9%
HTC 10
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
928 Points ∼60% -16%
Huawei P9
Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash
1029 Points ∼67% -7%
OnePlus 3
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
1112 Points ∼72% +1%
LG Stylus 2
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 16 GB eMMC Flash
1008 Points ∼65% -8%
Xiaomi Mi 5
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
1106 Points ∼72% 0%
Asphalt 8: Airborne
 InställningarVärde
 high30 fps
 very low30 fps
Dead Trigger 2
 InställningarVärde
 high55 fps
Hög belastning
 40.4 °C40.1 °C39.9 °C 
 39.9 °C40.1 °C38.7 °C 
 39.5 °C39 °C38.7 °C 
Max: 40.4 °C
Medel: 39.6 °C
35.9 °C39.8 °C39.6 °C
36.7 °C38.4 °C39.2 °C
36.1 °C38.2 °C38.5 °C
Max: 39.8 °C
Medel: 38 °C
Strömförsörjning (max.)  36.2 °C | Rumstemperatur 21.9 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2031.638.52525.433.33125.329.44032.928.75033.634.56331.626.98028.429.41002728.912520.830.71602236.320021.345.425020.85031521.254.940019.456.350019.563.563017.767.180017.969.7100017.870.8125017.369.7160017.469.4200016.773.7250017.274.1315018.278.2400017.975.7500017.671.7630017.776.4800017.875.71000017.9701250018.1721600018.259.1SPL3085.7N1.362.7median 17.9Samsung Galaxy Note 7median 69.7Delta1.3939.632.44132.431.335.531.531.731.234.22630.446.839.441.833.936.234.629.328.630.233.825.430.629.421.334.434.523.340.541.922.544.845.622.450.153.321.355.85518.458.155.817.56056.817.56152.517.256.660.216.861.769.717.362.774.417.466.87416.672.175.317.371.973.717.665.469.717.663.266.317.756.170.617.459.27017.761.167.317.961.259.118.159.463.318.155.583.129.878.149.11.337.6median 60.2HTC 10median 17.7median 59.410.71.64.737.536.427.134.832.437.534.827.726.630.831.334.832.233.629.529.731.732.238.33634.933.72638.350.547.147.347.739.450.531.633.329.131.936.231.628.231.532.626.728.628.230.625.227.624.525.430.632.626.428.523.621.332.642.523.539.922.123.342.549.423.446.621.222.549.45524.65022.722.45559.531.553.326.121.359.563.528.755.421.818.463.567.126.358.620.117.567.169.230.256.820.317.569.270.337.65722.217.270.370.141.756.928.516.870.174.852.660.840.617.374.878.459.862.945.817.478.478.761.364.942.316.678.78265.166.247.517.38279.563.963.348.817.679.577.668.26248.917.677.67273.356.654.217.77261.673.24653.917.461.653.371.136.752.917.753.347.473.926.954.817.947.439.973.122.654.218.139.926.859.618.741.118.126.888.480.373.361.629.888.464.534.827.811.81.364.5median 63.5Huawei P9 Plusmedian 52.6median 55.4median 40.6median 17.7median 63.512.620.211.813.31.612.6hearing rangehide median Pink Noise
Samsung Galaxy Note 7 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.71 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 28.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.9% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (6.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 9% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 82% worse
» The best had a delta of 14%, average was 26%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 44% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 49% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 22%, worst was 53%

HTC 10 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.13 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 7.3% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 10.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (26.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 52% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 41% worse
» The best had a delta of 14%, average was 26%, worst was 44%
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 22%, worst was 53%

Huawei P9 Plus audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88.38 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 18.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 8.1% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 12.2% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (11.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (30.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 74% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 18% worse
» The best had a delta of 14%, average was 26%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 87% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 9% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 22%, worst was 53%

Strömförbrukning
Av/Standbydarklight 0.02 / 0.2 Watt
Låg belastningdarkmidlight 0.72 / 1.37 / 1.44 Watt
Hög belastning midlight 5.56 / 6.78 Watt
 color bar
Förklaring: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Gossen Metrahit Energy
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
3500 mAh
Huawei Mate 8
4000 mAh
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
3340 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
3600 mAh
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
2750 mAh
Huawei P9 Plus
3400 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Note Edge
 mAh
Power Consumption
-13%
-127%
4%
-3%
7%
-26%
Idle Minimum *
0.72
0.85
-18%
2.85
-296%
0.63
12%
0.5
31%
0.87
-21%
0.4
44%
Idle Average *
1.37
2.07
-51%
2.95
-115%
1.1
20%
1.9
-39%
1.2
12%
1.5
-9%
Idle Maximum *
1.44
2.28
-58%
3.26
-126%
1.56
-8%
2.2
-53%
1.27
12%
2.4
-67%
Load Average *
5.56
3.91
30%
8.92
-60%
5.95
-7%
3.2
42%
4.69
16%
6.9
-24%
Load Maximum *
6.78
4.69
31%
9.39
-38%
6.7
1%
6.4
6%
5.63
17%
11.8
-74%

* ... smaller is better

Batteritid
Låg belastning (utan WLAN, min. ljusstyrka)
23tim 49min
Surfa med WLAN v1.3
10tim 07min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
16tim 00min
Hög belastning (maximal ljusstyrka)
6tim 01min
Samsung Galaxy Note 7
3500 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Note 5 SM-N920A
 mAh
Huawei Mate 8
4000 mAh
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
3340 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
3600 mAh
Apple iPhone 6S Plus
2750 mAh
Huawei P9 Plus
3400 mAh
LG Stylus 2
3000 mAh
Battery Runtime
-5%
11%
-38%
10%
-18%
-15%
-15%
Reader / Idle
1429
1775
24%
1872
31%
1078
-25%
1663
16%
1655
16%
1446
1%
1225
-14%
H.264
960
963
0%
611
-36%
914
-5%
714
-26%
776
-19%
697
-27%
WiFi v1.3
607
431
-29%
865
43%
369
-39%
732
21%
513
-15%
530
-13%
663
9%
Load
361
322
-11%
256
-29%
179
-50%
392
9%
197
-45%
263
-27%
258
-29%

För

+ utmärkt skärm
+ utmärkt kamera
+ lång batteritid
+ S-Pen med många funktioner
+ många sensorer
+ äntligen USB-C
+ OTG
+ skyddad mot damm och vatten (IP68)
+ snabbladdning och trådlös laddning
+ snabb SoC ...

Emot

- ... som stryps under kontinuerlig belastning
- medioker högtalare
- dålig WiFi-prestanda
- möjligheterna med USB 3.1 utnyttjas inte
- Iris-scanner inte helt utvecklad
- ej MHL eller SlimPort-stöd
In review: Samsung Galaxy Note 7 (SM-N930F). Test model courtesy of Notebooksbilliger.
In review: Samsung Galaxy Note 7 (SM-N930F). Test model courtesy of Notebooksbilliger.

Galaxy Note 7 är ännu en utmärkt smartphone utan någon egentlig konkurrens i klassen. Ingen annan smartphone inkluderar ett så förhållandevis kraftfullt verktyg som S-Pen, som dessutom förbättrats av och är mycket mer än bara en enkel stylus.

Du får också bra hårdvara. Från skärm och processor, via den generösa och snabba lagringen till en elegant design, plus skydd mot vatten och damm. Kameran tar bra bilder och batteriet räcker länge. Och även Samsung har nu lyckats inkludera en USB Type-C-port. 

Vissa detaljer kan kritiseras: WLAN-modulen hade överraskande låg prestanda och möjligheterna med USB 3.1 kunde utnyttjats bättre. Vi kan inte riktigt förstå varför Samsung endast skickar med en USB 2.0-kabel. Högtalaren lämnar övrigt att önska och den väl tilltagna prislappen kommer att lämna ett stort hål i plånboken.

Sammanfattningsvis har Galaxy Note 7 sofistikerad hårdvara och en utmärkt S-Pen. Det är bara batteriproblemen med det första modellerna som är ett orosmoln. Fans av Note-serien kommer säkert att uppskatta den senaste modellen, som är ett riktigt digitalt verktyg, 

Samsung Galaxy Note 7 - 09/16/2016 v5.1
Daniel Schmidt

Design
92%
Tangentbord
70 / 75 → 94%
Mus
95%
Anslutningar
54 / 60 → 89%
Vikt
91%
Batteri
95%
Skärm
91%
Spelprestanda
58 / 63 → 92%
Programprestanda
61 / 70 → 87%
Temperatur
87%
Ljudnivå
100%
Audio
59 / 91 → 65%
Camera
94%
Medel
81%
91%
Smartphone - Vägt medel

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Bärbara datorer, laptops - tester och nyheter > Tester > Test: Samsung Galaxy Note 7 (sammanfattning)
Daniel Schmidt, 2016-10- 3 (Update: 2016-10- 3)