Notebookcheck

Test: Samsung Galaxy S9 Smartphone (Sammanfattning)

Daniel Schmidt, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, Tanja Hinum (översatt av Daniel Eriksson), 04/07/2018

Galaktisk evolution. Galaxy S9 är en utmärkt smartphone med kraftfulla specifikationer och en utmärkt kamera. Samsung har tyvärr gjort avkall på en dual-kamera för denna telefon och skär ner på mängden RAM, men trots det har priset ändå ökat. Vi undersöker om det finns anledning att byta.

Samsung Galaxy S9 (Galaxy Serie)
Processor
Samsung Exynos 9810
Grafikkort
ARM Mali-G72 MP18
Minne
4096 MB 
, LPDDR4x
Skärm
5.8 tum 18.5:9, 2960 x 1440 pixlar 568 PPI, kapacitiv tryckkänslig, 10 punkters multitouch, Super AMOLED, Corning Gorilla Glass 5, glansig: ja
Hårddisk
64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 64 GB 
, 50 GB ledigt
Anslutningar
1 USB 3.0, 1 HDMI, 1 DisplayPort, Ljudanslutningar: kombinerad anslutning för hörlurar och mikrofon (3.5 mm), Kortläsare: microSD upp till 400 GB (SDHC, SDXC), 1 Fingeravtrycksläsare, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensorer: Iris-scanner, fingeravtryck, accelerometer, gyro, närhet, kompass, barometer, hjärtfrekvens, SpO2, MST, Ant+
Nätverk
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM, HSPA, LTE, Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Storlek
höjd x bredd x djup (i mm) 8.5 x 147.7 x 68.7
Batteri
11.55 Wh, 3000 mAh Litiumjon
Operativsystem
Android 8.0 Oreo
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix f/1.5-2.4, 26mm, 1/2.5", 1.4 µm, Dual Pixel
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix f/1.7, 25mm, 1/3.6", 1.22 µm
Övrigt
Högtalare: två högtalare, Tangentbord: virtuellt, USB-kabel, nätadapter, SIM-verktyg, headset, 2 USB-adaptrar, snabbstartsguide, 24 Månader Garanti, IP67, USB Typ-C 3.1 (Gen. 1), fanless
Vikt
163 g, Strömförsörjning: 62 g
Pris
849 Kr
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Size Comparison

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Apple iPhone X
A11 Bionic GPU, A11 Bionic, 64 GB eMMC Flash
939 MBit/s ∼100% +44%
LG V30
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
657 MBit/s ∼70% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
652 MBit/s ∼69%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
355 (min: 105, max: 550) MBit/s ∼38% -46%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
338 MBit/s ∼36% -48%
Samsung Galaxy S8
Mali-G71 MP20, 8895 Octa, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
329 MBit/s ∼35% -50%
Google Pixel 2
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
287 MBit/s ∼31% -56%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=306)
211 MBit/s ∼22% -68%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
LG V30
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
703 MBit/s ∼100% +35%
Samsung Galaxy S8
Mali-G71 MP20, 8895 Octa, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
651 MBit/s ∼93% +25%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
627 (min: 490, max: 666) MBit/s ∼89% +21%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
225 MBit/s ∼32% -57%
Samsung Galaxy S9
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
519 MBit/s ∼74%
Apple iPhone X
A11 Bionic GPU, A11 Bionic, 64 GB eMMC Flash
456 MBit/s ∼65% -12%
Google Pixel 2
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
240 MBit/s ∼34% -54%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=306)
206 MBit/s ∼29% -60%

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.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
click to load images
Test chart Galaxy S9 with f/2.4 aperture
Test chart Galaxy S9 with f/2.4 aperture
Test chart Galaxy S9 with f/1.5 aperture
Test chart Galaxy S9 with f/1.5 aperture
Test chart section Galaxy S9 with f/2.4 aperture
Test chart section Galaxy S9 with f/1.5 aperture
ColorChecker Passport: The target color is displayed in the lower half of each patch (f/2.4 aperture)
ColorChecker Passport: The target color is displayed in the lower half of each patch (f/1.5 aperture)
518
cd/m²
528
cd/m²
529
cd/m²
541
cd/m²
529
cd/m²
526
cd/m²
518
cd/m²
530
cd/m²
524
cd/m²
Distribution av ljusstyrkan
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Max: 541 cd/m² Medel: 527 cd/m² Minimum: 1.47 cd/m²
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 96 %
Mitt på batteriet: 529 cd/m²
Kontrast: ∞:1 (Svärta: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.4 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.2
ΔE Greyscale 1.6 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
Gamma: 2.16
Samsung Galaxy S9
Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 5.8
Samsung Galaxy S8
Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 5.8
Google Pixel 2
AMOLED, 1920x1080, 5
Apple iPhone X
Super AMOLED, 2436x1125, 5.8
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
OLED, 2160x1080, 6
LG V30
OLED, 2880x1440, 6
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
IPS, 2160x1080, 6
Screen
-35%
-9%
11%
-4%
-98%
-64%
Brightness middle
529
566
7%
396
-25%
600
13%
629
19%
432
-18%
472
-11%
Brightness
527
564
7%
404
-23%
606
15%
636
21%
428
-19%
430
-18%
Brightness Distribution
96
94
-2%
91
-5%
94
-2%
94
-2%
87
-9%
87
-9%
Black Level *
0.27
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
1.4
2.7
-93%
1.7
-21%
1.2
14%
1.7
-21%
4.18
-199%
3.5
-150%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
4
5.4
-35%
4
-0%
3
25%
3.6
10%
8.53
-113%
5.9
-48%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
1.6
3.1
-94%
1.3
19%
1.6
-0%
2.4
-50%
5.3
-231%
4
-150%
Gamma
2.16 102%
2.15 102%
2.3 96%
2.23 99%
2.15 102%
2.33 94%
2.29 96%
CCT
6358 102%
6335 103%
6483 100%
6707 97%
6337 103%
7487 87%
7048 92%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
81.57
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
99.87
Contrast
1748

* ... smaller is better

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 240.4 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 240.4 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 240.4 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below.

In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8931 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Grayscale (Profile: Photo, target color space: Adobe RGB)
Grayscale (Profile: Photo, target color space: Adobe RGB)
ColorChecker (Profile: Photo, target color space: Adobe RGB)
ColorChecker (Profile: Photo, target color space: Adobe RGB)
Colorspace (Profile: Photo, target color space: Adobe RGB)
Colorspace (Profile: Photo, target color space: Adobe RGB)
Saturation (Profile: Photo, target color space: Adobe RGB)
Saturation (Profile: Photo, target color space: Adobe RGB)
Grayscale (Profile: Simple, target color space: sRGB)
Grayscale (Profile: Simple, target color space: sRGB)
ColorChecker (Profile: Simple, target color space: sRGB)
ColorChecker (Profile: Simple, target color space: sRGB)
Colorspace (Profile: Simple, target color space: sRGB)
Colorspace (Profile: Simple, target color space: sRGB)
Saturation (Profile: Simple, target color space: sRGB)
Saturation (Profile: Simple, target color space: sRGB)
Grayscale (Profile: Cinema, target color space: DCI-P3)
Grayscale (Profile: Cinema, target color space: DCI-P3)
ColorChecker (Profile: Cinema, target color space: DCI-P3)
ColorChecker (Profile: Cinema, target color space: DCI-P3)
Colorspace (Profile: Cinema, target color space: DCI-P3)
Colorspace (Profile: Cinema, target color space: DCI-P3)
Saturation (Profile: Cinema, target color space: DCI-P3)
Saturation (Profile: Cinema, target color space: DCI-P3)
Grayscale (Profile: Adaptive, target color space: DCI-P3)
Grayscale (Profile: Adaptive, target color space: DCI-P3)
ColorChecker (Profile: Adaptive, target color space: DCI-P3)
ColorChecker (Profile: Adaptive, target color space: DCI-P3)
Colorspace (Profile: Adaptive, target color space: DCI-P3)
Colorspace (Profile: Adaptive, target color space: DCI-P3)
Saturation (Profile: Adaptive, target color space: DCI-P3)
Saturation (Profile: Adaptive, target color space: DCI-P3)
Grayscale (Profile: Adaptive (optimized), target color space: DCI-P3)
Grayscale (Profile: Adaptive (optimized), target color space: DCI-P3)
ColorChecker (Profile: Adaptive (optimized), target color space: DCI-P3)
ColorChecker (Profile: Adaptive (optimized), target color space: DCI-P3)

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
6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 3 ms rise
↘ 3 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. » 3 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (25.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 3 ms rise
↘ 5 ms fall
The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 4 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (41 ms).
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
217950 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S8
171884 Points ∼79% -21%
LG V30
173749 Points ∼80% -20%
OnePlus 5T
172124 Points ∼79% -21%
HTC U11
175032 Points ∼80% -20%
Google Pixel 2
166939 Points ∼77% -23%
Apple iPhone X
197851 Points ∼91% -9%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
177341 Points ∼81% -19%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (214090 - 222290, n=3)
218110 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (23275 - 254229, n=389)
76442 Points ∼35% -65%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
243861 Points ∼95%
OnePlus 5T
214815 Points ∼84% -12%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
204457 Points ∼80% -16%
Google Pixel 2
207530 Points ∼81% -15%
Apple iPhone X
256297 Points ∼100% +5%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
212278 Points ∼83% -13%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (236552 - 250577, n=3)
243663 Points ∼95% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (17073 - 348178, n=170)
118332 Points ∼46% -51%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
5291 Points ∼73%
Samsung Galaxy S8
5370 Points ∼74% +1%
LG V30
5603 Points ∼78% +6%
OnePlus 5T
6595 Points ∼91% +25%
HTC U11
6828 Points ∼95% +29%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
7046 Points ∼98% +33%
Google Pixel 2
7223 Points ∼100% +37%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
6932 Points ∼96% +31%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (5184 - 5319, n=3)
5265 Points ∼73% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (3146 - 9868, n=255)
4555 Points ∼63% -14%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
5736 Points ∼67%
Samsung Galaxy S8
6035 Points ∼71% +5%
LG V30
6854 Points ∼80% +19%
OnePlus 5T
7739 Points ∼91% +35%
HTC U11
8295 Points ∼97% +45%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
8169 Points ∼96% +42%
Google Pixel 2
8550 Points ∼100% +49%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
8439 Points ∼99% +47%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (5736 - 5960, n=3)
5839 Points ∼68% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (6412 - 13531, n=423)
4958 Points ∼58% -14%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
1099 Points ∼65%
Samsung Galaxy S8
1156 Points ∼69% +5%
LG V30
1009 Points ∼60% -8%
OnePlus 5T
1329 Points ∼79% +21%
HTC U11
1221 Points ∼73% +11%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
1264 Points ∼75% +15%
Google Pixel 2
1210 Points ∼72% +10%
Apple iPhone X
1682 Points ∼100% +53%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
1234 Points ∼73% +12%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (1099 - 1132, n=3)
1113 Points ∼66% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1731, n=499)
698 Points ∼41% -36%
Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
6373 Points ∼69%
Samsung Galaxy S8
6096 Points ∼66% -4%
LG V30
5949 Points ∼64% -7%
OnePlus 5T
6100 Points ∼66% -4%
HTC U11
5976 Points ∼65% -6%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
5936 Points ∼64% -7%
Google Pixel 2
6052 Points ∼65% -5%
Apple iPhone X
9248 Points ∼100% +45%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
3657 Points ∼40% -43%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (6370 - 6506, n=3)
6416 Points ∼69% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 15969, n=499)
1737 Points ∼19% -73%
Memory (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
2669 Points ∼64%
Samsung Galaxy S8
3039 Points ∼73% +14%
LG V30
2091 Points ∼50% -22%
OnePlus 5T
3845 Points ∼93% +44%
HTC U11
2085 Points ∼50% -22%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
3544 Points ∼86% +33%
Google Pixel 2
2942 Points ∼71% +10%
Apple iPhone X
1219 Points ∼29% -54%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
4142 Points ∼100% +55%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (2068 - 2669, n=3)
2454 Points ∼59% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 6283, n=499)
1244 Points ∼30% -53%
System (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
6234 Points ∼61%
Samsung Galaxy S8
5386 Points ∼52% -14%
LG V30
4238 Points ∼41% -32%
OnePlus 5T
5872 Points ∼57% -6%
HTC U11
5570 Points ∼54% -11%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
5822 Points ∼57% -7%
Google Pixel 2
5918 Points ∼58% -5%
Apple iPhone X
10281 Points ∼100% +65%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
5244 Points ∼51% -16%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (6137 - 6413, n=3)
6261 Points ∼61% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 12202, n=499)
2512 Points ∼24% -60%
Overall (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
3285 Points ∼88%
Samsung Galaxy S8
3277 Points ∼88% 0%
LG V30
2702 Points ∼72% -18%
OnePlus 5T
3678 Points ∼98% +12%
HTC U11
3034 Points ∼81% -8%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
3527 Points ∼94% +7%
Google Pixel 2
3360 Points ∼90% +2%
Apple iPhone X
3737 Points ∼100% +14%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
3147 Points ∼84% -4%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (3110 - 3302, n=3)
3232 Points ∼86% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (150 - 6097, n=503)
1255 Points ∼34% -62%
Geekbench 4.1/4.2
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
6219 Points ∼73%
Samsung Galaxy S8
8490 Points ∼99% +37%
LG V30
8016 Points ∼94% +29%
OnePlus 5T
8000 Points ∼93% +29%
HTC U11
8281 Points ∼97% +33%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
7750 Points ∼90% +25%
Google Pixel 2
7462 Points ∼87% +20%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
8572 Points ∼100% +38%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (6202 - 9059, n=3)
7160 Points ∼84% +15%
Average of class Smartphone (836 - 21070, n=197)
4524 Points ∼53% -27%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
8786 Points ∼86%
Samsung Galaxy S8
6711 Points ∼65% -24%
LG V30
6078 Points ∼59% -31%
OnePlus 5T
6670 Points ∼65% -24%
HTC U11
6443 Points ∼63% -27%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
6649 Points ∼65% -24%
Google Pixel 2
6256 Points ∼61% -29%
Apple iPhone X
10255 Points ∼100% +17%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
6792 Points ∼66% -23%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (8786 - 8963, n=3)
8874 Points ∼87% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (883 - 11598, n=247)
4308 Points ∼42% -51%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
3688 Points ∼86%
Samsung Galaxy S8
1997 Points ∼47% -46%
LG V30
1900 Points ∼45% -48%
OnePlus 5T
1962 Points ∼46% -47%
HTC U11
1906 Points ∼45% -48%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
1943 Points ∼46% -47%
Google Pixel 2
1924 Points ∼45% -48%
Apple iPhone X
4265 Points ∼100% +16%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
1898 Points ∼45% -49%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (1698 - 3776, n=3)
3054 Points ∼72% -17%
Average of class Smartphone (394 - 4824, n=248)
1270 Points ∼30% -66%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
2486 Points ∼81%
Samsung Galaxy S8
2494 Points ∼81% 0%
LG V30
2931 Points ∼95% +18%
OnePlus 5T
3068 Points ∼100% +23%
HTC U11
2841 Points ∼92% +14%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
2956 Points ∼96% +19%
Google Pixel 2
3078 Points ∼100% +24%
Apple iPhone X
2361 Points ∼77% -5%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
2871 Points ∼93% +15%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (2469 - 2569, n=3)
2508 Points ∼81% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (2281 - 4216, n=352)
1642 Points ∼53% -34%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
3553 Points ∼88%
Samsung Galaxy S8
3472 Points ∼86% -2%
LG V30
3903 Points ∼97% +10%
OnePlus 5T
4016 Points ∼100% +13%
HTC U11
3883 Points ∼96% +9%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
4034 Points ∼100% +14%
Google Pixel 2
3974 Points ∼99% +12%
Apple iPhone X
3463 Points ∼86% -3%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
2844 Points ∼71% -20%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (3553 - 3673, n=3)
3603 Points ∼89% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (815 - 5241, n=352)
1186 Points ∼29% -67%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
3244 Points ∼86%
Samsung Galaxy S8
3194 Points ∼85% -2%
LG V30
3635 Points ∼97% +12%
OnePlus 5T
3758 Points ∼100% +16%
HTC U11
3590 Points ∼96% +11%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
3732 Points ∼99% +15%
Google Pixel 2
3733 Points ∼99% +15%
Apple iPhone X
3138 Points ∼84% -3%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
2850 Points ∼76% -12%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (3244 - 3353, n=3)
3284 Points ∼87% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (951 - 4734, n=360)
1134 Points ∼30% -65%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
2600 Points ∼84%
Samsung Galaxy S8
2440 Points ∼79% -6%
LG V30
2808 Points ∼91% +8%
OnePlus 5T
3031 Points ∼98% +17%
HTC U11
2832 Points ∼92% +9%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
2547 Points ∼83% -2%
Google Pixel 2
3080 Points ∼100% +18%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
2896 Points ∼94% +11%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (2496 - 2600, n=3)
2537 Points ∼82% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (532 - 4215, n=384)
1540 Points ∼50% -41%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
4569 Points ∼76%
Samsung Galaxy S8
4923 Points ∼82% +8%
LG V30
5895 Points ∼98% +29%
OnePlus 5T
5791 Points ∼96% +27%
HTC U11
5877 Points ∼97% +29%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
5599 Points ∼93% +23%
Google Pixel 2
6040 Points ∼100% +32%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
3353 Points ∼56% -27%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (4569 - 4826, n=3)
4677 Points ∼77% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (46 - 8312, n=384)
1632 Points ∼27% -64%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
3911 Points ∼79%
Samsung Galaxy S8
4015 Points ∼81% +3%
LG V30
4738 Points ∼95% +21%
OnePlus 5T
4816 Points ∼97% +23%
HTC U11
4744 Points ∼95% +21%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
4422 Points ∼89% +13%
Google Pixel 2
4977 Points ∼100% +27%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
3239 Points ∼65% -17%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (3895 - 4008, n=3)
3938 Points ∼79% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (58 - 6454, n=392)
1387 Points ∼28% -65%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
26851 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S8
21543 Points ∼80% -20%
LG V30
14601 Points ∼54% -46%
OnePlus 5T
21348 Points ∼80% -20%
HTC U11
20140 Points ∼75% -25%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
21337 Points ∼79% -21%
Google Pixel 2
20482 Points ∼76% -24%
Apple iPhone X
25633 Points ∼95% -5%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
22629 Points ∼84% -16%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (18756 - 26851, n=3)
23944 Points ∼89% -11%
Average of class Smartphone (3958 - 37475, n=539)
12880 Points ∼48% -52%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
48433 Points ∼43%
Samsung Galaxy S8
36347 Points ∼32% -25%
LG V30
55271 Points ∼49% +14%
OnePlus 5T
58097 Points ∼52% +20%
HTC U11
55725 Points ∼50% +15%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
57134 Points ∼51% +18%
Google Pixel 2
55247 Points ∼49% +14%
Apple iPhone X
112489 Points ∼100% +132%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
34008 Points ∼30% -30%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (36190 - 48433, n=3)
43744 Points ∼39% -10%
Average of class Smartphone (2465 - 162695, n=539)
17994 Points ∼16% -63%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
41093 Points ∼64%
Samsung Galaxy S8
31532 Points ∼49% -23%
LG V30
34139 Points ∼53% -17%
OnePlus 5T
42022 Points ∼65% +2%
HTC U11
40014 Points ∼62% -3%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
41618 Points ∼65% +1%
Google Pixel 2
40116 Points ∼63% -2%
Apple iPhone X
64169 Points ∼100% +56%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
30590 Points ∼48% -26%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (29994 - 41093, n=3)
36944 Points ∼58% -10%
Average of class Smartphone (2915 - 77599, n=540)
15114 Points ∼24% -63%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
144 fps ∼81%
Samsung Galaxy S8
121 fps ∼68% -16%
LG V30
113 fps ∼64% -22%
OnePlus 5T
113 fps ∼64% -22%
HTC U11
91 fps ∼51% -37%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
102 fps ∼57% -29%
Google Pixel 2
112 fps ∼63% -22%
Apple iPhone X
177.4 fps ∼100% +23%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
112 fps ∼63% -22%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (144 - 147, n=3)
146 fps ∼82% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 251, n=564)
31.4 fps ∼18% -78%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
60 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S8
60 fps ∼100% 0%
LG V30
60 fps ∼100% 0%
OnePlus 5T
60 fps ∼100% 0%
HTC U11
58 fps ∼97% -3%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
60 fps ∼100% 0%
Google Pixel 2
59 fps ∼98% -2%
Apple iPhone X
59.4 fps ∼99% -1%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
60 fps ∼100% 0%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (60 - 60, n=3)
60 fps ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (6.9 - 120, n=567)
25 fps ∼42% -58%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
73 fps ∼83%
Samsung Galaxy S8
62 fps ∼70% -15%
LG V30
59 fps ∼67% -19%
OnePlus 5T
60 fps ∼68% -18%
HTC U11
51 fps ∼58% -30%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
49 fps ∼56% -33%
Google Pixel 2
52 fps ∼59% -29%
Apple iPhone X
88.2 fps ∼100% +21%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
54 fps ∼61% -26%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (73 - 76, n=3)
74.3 fps ∼84% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 132, n=486)
16.8 fps ∼19% -77%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
45 fps ∼77%
Samsung Galaxy S8
41 fps ∼70% -9%
LG V30
35 fps ∼60% -22%
OnePlus 5T
53 fps ∼91% +18%
HTC U11
29 fps ∼50% -36%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
45 fps ∼77% 0%
Google Pixel 2
54 fps ∼92% +20%
Apple iPhone X
58.5 fps ∼100% +30%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
56 fps ∼96% +24%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (45 - 47, n=3)
45.7 fps ∼78% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 115, n=489)
16 fps ∼27% -64%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
46 fps ∼94%
Samsung Galaxy S8
24 fps ∼49% -48%
LG V30
40 fps ∼82% -13%
OnePlus 5T
41 fps ∼84% -11%
HTC U11
33 fps ∼67% -28%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
34 fps ∼70% -26%
Google Pixel 2
31 fps ∼63% -33%
Apple iPhone X
48.9 fps ∼100% +6%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
37 fps ∼76% -20%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (45 - 47, n=3)
46 fps ∼94% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 88, n=349)
14.3 fps ∼29% -69%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
24 fps ∼54%
Samsung Galaxy S8
23 fps ∼52% -4%
LG V30
19 fps ∼43% -21%
OnePlus 5T
37 fps ∼84% +54%
HTC U11
15 fps ∼34% -37%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
34 fps ∼77% +42%
Google Pixel 2
40 fps ∼91% +67%
Apple iPhone X
44.1 fps ∼100% +84%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
38 fps ∼86% +58%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (24 - 25, n=3)
24.3 fps ∼55% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (9.8 - 110, n=352)
13.9 fps ∼32% -42%
GFXBench
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
28 fps ∼88%
Samsung Galaxy S8
25 fps ∼79% -11%
LG V30
24 fps ∼75% -14%
OnePlus 5T
25 fps ∼79% -11%
HTC U11
24 fps ∼75% -14%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
24 fps ∼75% -14%
Google Pixel 2
24 fps ∼75% -14%
Apple iPhone X
31.8 fps ∼100% +14%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
21 fps ∼66% -25%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (28 - 28, n=3)
28 fps ∼88% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (6.3 - 54, n=280)
9.86 fps ∼31% -65%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
14 fps ∼51%
Samsung Galaxy S8
13 fps ∼47% -7%
LG V30
13 fps ∼47% -7%
OnePlus 5T
23 fps ∼83% +64%
HTC U11
13 fps ∼47% -7%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
23 fps ∼83% +64%
Google Pixel 2
25 fps ∼90% +79%
Apple iPhone X
27.7 fps ∼100% +98%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
22 fps ∼79% +57%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (14 - 15, n=3)
14.3 fps ∼52% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (6 - 58, n=283)
8.89 fps ∼32% -36%
Lightmark - 1920x1080 1080p (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
34.04 fps ∼89%
Samsung Galaxy S8
30.64 fps ∼80% -10%
HTC U11
36.58 fps ∼95% +7%
Google Pixel 2
38.4 fps ∼100% +13%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
21.49 fps ∼56% -37%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (34 - 35.8, n=2)
34.9 fps ∼91% +3%
Average of class Smartphone (1.06 - 38.7, n=72)
12.1 fps ∼32% -64%
Basemark X 1.1
High Quality (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S8
42183 Points ∼100%
HTC U11
38752 Points ∼92%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
25922 Points ∼61%
Average of class Smartphone (983 - 42335, n=101)
11606 Points ∼28%
Medium Quality (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S8
43852 Points ∼98%
HTC U11
44696 Points ∼100%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
39033 Points ∼87%
Average of class Smartphone (3159 - 44696, n=116)
16447 Points ∼37%
Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S9
1436 Points ∼84%
Samsung Galaxy S8
1276 Points ∼75% -11%
HTC U11
812 Points ∼48% -43%
Google Pixel 2
836 Points ∼49% -42%
Apple iPhone X
1702 Points ∼100% +19%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
788 Points ∼46% -45%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (1436 - 1481, n=3)
1466 Points ∼86% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (36.3 - 2754, n=76)
693 Points ∼41% -52%
Epic Citadel - Ultra High Quality (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy S8
59.8 fps ∼100%
HTC U11
60 fps ∼100%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
59.7 fps ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone (23.8 - 61.6, n=121)
42.6 fps ∼71%

Legend

 
Samsung Galaxy S9 Samsung Exynos 9810, ARM Mali-G72 MP18, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy S8 Samsung Exynos 8895 Octa, ARM Mali-G71 MP20, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
LG V30 Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
OnePlus 5T Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
HTC U11 Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
Google Pixel 2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Apple iPhone X Apple A11 Bionic, Apple A11 Bionic GPU, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
Huawei Mate 10 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 970, ARM Mali-G72 MP12, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
Apple iPhone X (IOS 11.1.1)
224 Points ∼100% +231%
HTC U11 (Chrome 58)
69.51 Points ∼31% +3%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
67.721 Points ∼30%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (63 - 69.6, n=3)
66.8 Points ∼30% -1%
OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63)
66.477 Points ∼30% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S8 (Samsung Browser 5.2)
65.846 Points ∼29% -3%
Google Pixel 2 (Chrome 62)
64.791 Points ∼29% -4%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61)
56.63 Points ∼25% -16%
LG V30 (Chrome 62)
52.9 Points ∼24% -22%
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 273, n=422)
36.7 Points ∼16% -46%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Apple iPhone X (IOS 11.1.2)
35255 Points ∼100% +131%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
15233 Points ∼43%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (14663 - 15233, n=3)
14885 Points ∼42% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S8 (Samsung Browser 5.2)
12941 Points ∼37% -15%
OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63)
12509 Points ∼35% -18%
HTC U11 (Chrome 58)
11781 Points ∼33% -23%
Google Pixel 2 (Chrome 62)
11380 Points ∼32% -25%
LG V30 (Chrome 62)
10506 Points ∼30% -31%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61)
10406 Points ∼30% -32%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (Chrome 53)
10122 Points ∼29% -34%
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 43280, n=558)
5562 Points ∼16% -63%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (603 - 59466, n=578)
11474 ms * ∼100% -452%
LG V30 (Chrome 62)
3630 ms * ∼32% -75%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61)
3590.6 ms * ∼31% -73%
Google Pixel 2 (Chrome 62)
3414.7 ms * ∼30% -64%
OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63)
3096 ms * ∼27% -49%
HTC U11 (Chrome 58)
2760.3 ms * ∼24% -33%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (Chrome 53)
2712.9 ms * ∼24% -31%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (2060 - 2710, n=3)
2283 ms * ∼20% -10%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
2077.8 ms * ∼18%
Samsung Galaxy S8 (Samsung Browser 5.2)
1886.6 ms * ∼16% +9%
Apple iPhone X (IOS 11.1.2)
718 ms * ∼6% +65%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
Apple iPhone X (Safari Mobile 11.0)
354 Points ∼100% +117%
Samsung Galaxy S8 (Samsung Browser 5.2)
194 Points ∼55% +19%
Google Pixel 2 (Chrome 62)
190 Points ∼54% +17%
OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63)
181 Points ∼51% +11%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (163 - 202, n=3)
176 Points ∼50% +8%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
163 Points ∼46%
HTC U11 (Chrome 58)
162 Points ∼46% -1%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61)
158 Points ∼45% -3%
LG V30 (Chrome 62)
138 Points ∼39% -15%
Average of class Smartphone (91 - 362, n=284)
111 Points ∼31% -32%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (Chrome 53)
57 Points ∼16% -65%

* ... smaller is better

Samsung Galaxy S9Samsung Galaxy S8LG V30HTC U11Xiaomi Mi Mix 2Huawei Mate 10 ProAverage 64 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-14%
-29%
27%
-8%
151%
10%
-48%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
67.18 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
53.5 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-20%
47.2
-30%
46.25 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-31%
50.2 (17.1 - 71.9, n=25)
-25%
45.5 (3.4 - 87.1, n=318)
-32%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
79.22 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
63.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-19%
62.8
-21%
68.82 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-13%
66.4 (18 - 86.6, n=25)
-16%
63.8 (8.2 - 96.5, n=318)
-19%
Random Write 4KB
23.07
15.25
-34%
10.21
-56%
79.97
247%
15.75
-32%
164.45
613%
50.5 (8.77 - 156, n=34)
119%
16.1 (0.14 - 164, n=607)
-30%
Random Read 4KB
131
127.17
-3%
78.17
-40%
91.45
-30%
148.54
13%
132.27
1%
134 (78.2 - 173, n=34)
2%
38.3 (1.59 - 173, n=607)
-71%
Sequential Write 256KB
206.94
193.23
-7%
193.22
-7%
206.41
0%
208.62
1%
208.72
1%
193 (133 - 229, n=34)
-7%
79.9 (2.99 - 246, n=607)
-61%
Sequential Read 256KB
815.43
792.86
-3%
669.48
-18%
717.33
-12%
703.99
-14%
732.46
-10%
727 (529 - 895, n=34)
-11%
230 (12.1 - 895, n=607)
-72%
Asphalt 8: Airborne
 InställningarVärde
 high30 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Dead Trigger 2
 InställningarVärde
 high30 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Battle Bay
 InställningarVärde
 full resolution60 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
World of Tanks Blitz
 InställningarVärde
 high, 0xAA, 0xAF60 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Arena of Valor
 InställningarVärde
 high HD59 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Shadow Fight 3
 InställningarVärde
 high59 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Hög belastning
 33.4 °C35.4 °C35.3 °C 
 33.2 °C34.6 °C33.4 °C 
 33 °C33.3 °C32.8 °C 
Max: 35.4 °C
Medel: 33.8 °C
31.8 °C36.2 °C35.5 °C
31.2 °C33.6 °C33.3 °C
31.3 °C32.2 °C32.1 °C
Max: 36.2 °C
Medel: 33 °C
Strömförsörjning (max.)  25.5 °C | Rumstemperatur 21.3 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 33.8 °C / 93 F, compared to the average of 33.2 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 35.4 °C / 96 F, compared to the average of 35.7 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 36.2 °C / 97 F, compared to the average of 34.2 °C / 94 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 22.9 °C / 73 F, compared to the device average of 33.2 °C / 92 F.
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2028.6272524.9243124.624.54026.4255030.830.86323.625.88020.222.910019.927.812517.638.616019.150.620019.150.325017.454.131516.959.540016.862.250015.165.963016.56980015.670.710001573.3125015.572.1160015.372.4200015.773.5250015.574.5315015.575.8400015.476.2500015.874.663001678.2800015.873.21000016.169.91250016.165.51600017.359.3SPL27.986N166.7median 16median 69.9Delta0.68.335.242.832.938.837.236.131.73839.642.128.335.127.334.126.932.826.734.72441.320.949.920.954.719.558.218.562.817.566.317.567.515.766.815.871.116.675.215.878.915.480.815.581.71675.815.879.51675.416.375.816.37816.276.516.472.316.457.428.689.41.175.8median 16.4median 71.12.19.831.635.825.440.125.335.532.931.933.631.631.638.928.433.82727.220.828.62236.421.342.620.851.521.258.619.465.719.571.417.770.717.968.317.870.717.370.317.462.516.760.817.258.318.265.317.967.817.672.417.770.617.871.517.97318.164.518.249.33081.41.351.2median 17.9median 65.31.310.6hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseSamsung Galaxy S9Google Pixel 2HTC U11
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Samsung Galaxy S9 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.1% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.8% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 3% of all tested devices in this class were better, 3% similar, 94% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 25% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 68% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Google Pixel 2 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (89.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.3% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 13% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 77% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 44% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 47% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

HTC U11 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.1% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.1% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 18% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 70% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 49% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 42% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Strömförbrukning
Av/Standbydarklight 0 / 0.04 Watt
Låg belastningdarkmidlight 0.65 / 0.81 / 0.92 Watt
Hög belastning midlight 4.76 / 5.16 Watt
 color bar
Förklaring: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Samsung Galaxy S9
3000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S8
3000 mAh
HTC U11
3000 mAh
Google Pixel 2
2700 mAh
Apple iPhone X
2716 mAh
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
3771 mAh
Average Samsung Exynos 9810
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-14%
-62%
-40%
-85%
-64%
-38%
-52%
Idle Minimum *
0.65
0.78
-20%
0.73
-12%
0.99
-52%
1.03
-58%
0.69
-6%
0.743 (0.65 - 0.9, n=3)
-14%
0.88 (0.2 - 3.4, n=636)
-35%
Idle Average *
0.81
1.1
-36%
1.96
-142%
1.35
-67%
2.4
-196%
2.03
-151%
1.22 (0.81 - 1.9, n=3)
-51%
1.719 (0.6 - 6.2, n=635)
-112%
Idle Maximum *
0.92
1.16
-26%
1.98
-115%
1.37
-49%
2.6
-183%
2.1
-128%
1.903 (0.92 - 3.7, n=3)
-107%
1.998 (0.74 - 6.6, n=636)
-117%
Load Average *
4.76
4.15
13%
4.82
-1%
3.25
32%
2.96
38%
3.18
33%
4.88 (4.58 - 5.3, n=3)
-3%
4.04 (0.8 - 10.8, n=630)
15%
Load Maximum *
5.16
5.12
1%
7.15
-39%
8.56
-66%
6.6
-28%
8.73
-69%
5.97 (5.16 - 7.6, n=3)
-16%
5.75 (1.2 - 14.2, n=630)
-11%

* ... smaller is better

Batteritid
Låg belastning (utan WLAN, min. ljusstyrka)
19tim 42min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
7tim 54min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
10tim 9min
Hög belastning (maximal ljusstyrka)
2tim 44min
Samsung Galaxy S9
3000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S8
3000 mAh
LG V30
3300 mAh
HTC U11
3000 mAh
Google Pixel 2
2700 mAh
Apple iPhone X
2716 mAh
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2
3771 mAh
Huawei Mate 10 Pro
4000 mAh
Battery Runtime
45%
56%
9%
9%
11%
27%
79%
Reader / Idle
1182
1667
41%
1914
62%
1250
6%
1457
23%
1292
9%
1744
48%
H.264
609
771
27%
822
35%
498
-18%
564
-7%
634
4%
929
53%
WiFi v1.3
474
719
52%
774
63%
560
18%
575
21%
564
19%
600
27%
818
73%
Load
164
264
61%
267
63%
212
29%
161
-2%
180
10%
398
143%

För

+ tilltalande design
+ utmärkt skärm
+ snabb SoC
+ LTE Cat. 18
+ skyddad mot vatten och damm
+ utökningsbar lagring
+ Dual-SIM SKU finns tillgänglig (Duos)
+ bra sensorutrustning
+ USB 3.1 med DP, HDMI och OTG
+ utmärkt kamera
+ trådlös laddning
+ Ultra HD-video i 60 FPS

Emot

- kan bli överhettad vid belastning
- video i upp till 60 FPS har begränsad inspelningstid
- ingen Dual-VoLTE
- lång laddningstid
- garantin exkluderar skada som orsakats av vätskor
In review: Samsung Galaxy S9.
In review: Samsung Galaxy S9.

Läs den fullständiga versionen av den här recensionen här.

Vi föredrar Samsung Galaxy S9 framför dess större syskon S9+. Den är inte lika skrymmande och dual-kameran är inte värd det högre priset. Den Koreanska tillverkaren levererar återigen en riktigt utmärkt smartphone, men den är mer av en uppfräschning av förra årets Galaxy S8 och den har fortfarande några buggar, varav en del inte är obetydliga. I synnerhet är batteritiden för kort, särskilt jämfört med den gamla S8. Detta är mest irriterande för dom som förbokade denna Samsung-telefon och betalade fullpris, och som nu måste hoppas på att tillverkaren fixar detta via en uppdatering så snart som möjligt.

Samsung behöver skicka ut uppdateringar för att åtgärda dom korta batteritiderna, för Galaxy S9 har potentialen att vara en utmärkt smartphone.

Den Koreanska tillverkaren levererar ändå en utmärkt produkt. En snabb processor, utmärkt skärm, bättre placering av fingeravtrycksläsaren, utökningsbar lagring, bra stereohögtalare, skydd mot damm och vatten och en modell med Dual-SIM som alternativ är några av fördelarna. Men en del funktioner som förstorades upp i presentationen, såsom AR Emoji och kamerans super-slow-motion-funktion är snarare gimmicks än riktigt sofistikerade funktioner med mervärde.

Du kan slappna av om du redan äger en Galaxy S8, för vi tycker inte det finns någon övertygande anledning att uppgradera.

Samsung Galaxy S9 - 03/30/2018 v6
Daniel Schmidt

Design
92%
Tangentbord
69 / 75 → 92%
Mus
97%
Anslutningar
66 / 60 → 100%
Vikt
91%
Batteri
91%
Skärm
92%
Spelprestanda
66 / 63 → 100%
Programprestanda
66 / 70 → 94%
Temperatur
87%
Ljudnivå
100%
Audio
75 / 91 → 82%
Camera
94%
Medel
83%
91%
Smartphone - Vägt medel

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Bärbara datorer, laptops - tester och nyheter > Tester > Test: Samsung Galaxy S9 Smartphone (Sammanfattning)
Daniel Schmidt, 2018-04- 7 (Update: 2018-04- 7)