Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Chinese
MagyarTest: Vivo IQOO Smartphone (Sammanfattning)
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Google Pixel 3a XL | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| Nokia 8.1 | |
| Sony Xperia 10 Plus | |
| Vivo IQOO | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| Google Pixel 3a XL | |
| Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
| Sony Xperia 10 Plus | |
| Nokia 8.1 | |
| Vivo IQOO | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 98 %
Mitt på batteriet: 612 cd/m²
Kontrast: ∞:1 (Svärta: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.37 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 4.8 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
99.4% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.255
| Vivo IQOO AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.41 | Sony Xperia 10 Plus IPS, 2520x1080, 6.50 | Xiaomi Mi 9 AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.39 | Nokia 8.1 IPS, 2246x1080, 6.18 | Google Pixel 3a XL OLED, 2160x1080, 6.00 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -13% | 37% | 4% | 26% | |
| Brightness middle | 612 | 572 -7% | 593 -3% | 567 -7% | 409 -33% |
| Brightness | 618 | 580 -6% | 587 -5% | 547 -11% | 410 -34% |
| Brightness Distribution | 98 | 96 -2% | 94 -4% | 92 -6% | 96 -2% |
| Black Level * | 0.4 | 0.61 | |||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 5.37 | 4.5 16% | 0.9 83% | 4.39 18% | 1.3 76% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 10.65 | 12.2 -15% | 2 81% | 7.28 32% | 2.3 78% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 4.8 | 7.9 -65% | 1.5 69% | 4.9 -2% | 1.5 69% |
| Gamma | 2.255 98% | 2.16 102% | 2.27 97% | 2.248 98% | 2.22 99% |
| CCT | 7440 87% | 8726 74% | 6548 99% | 7642 85% | 6621 98% |
| Contrast | 1430 | 930 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 219 Hz |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 219 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 219 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17915 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
Display 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 13 % 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 | ||
| 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 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 13 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms). | ||
| GFXBench 3.0 | |
| on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
| Vivo IQOO | |
| Sony Xperia 10 Plus | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| Nokia 8.1 | |
| Google Pixel 3a XL | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (46 - 85, n=20) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 165, n=185, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Vivo IQOO | |
| Sony Xperia 10 Plus | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| Nokia 8.1 | |
| Google Pixel 3a XL | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (50 - 102, n=20) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (9.2 - 363, n=185, last 2 years) | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Vivo IQOO | |
| Sony Xperia 10 Plus | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| Nokia 8.1 | |
| Google Pixel 3a XL | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (27 - 58, n=20) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 158, n=185, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Vivo IQOO | |
| Sony Xperia 10 Plus | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| Nokia 8.1 | |
| Google Pixel 3a XL | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (35 - 71, n=20) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.2 - 279, n=185, last 2 years) | |
| AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Vivo IQOO | |
| Sony Xperia 10 Plus | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
| Nokia 8.1 | |
| Google Pixel 3a XL | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (217967 - 398720, n=16) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (39 - 304, n=122, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (90 - 129, n=20) | |
| Vivo IQOO (Chrome 74) | |
| Nokia 8.1 (Chrome 71) | |
| Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73) | |
| Sony Xperia 10 Plus (Chrome 73) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 89112, n=211, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (17011 - 33918, n=21) | |
| Vivo IQOO (Chrome 74) | |
| Nokia 8.1 (Chrome 71) | |
| Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73) | |
| Sony Xperia 10 Plus (Chrome 73) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Sony Xperia 10 Plus (Chrome 73) | |
| Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73) | |
| Nokia 8.1 (Chrome 71) | |
| Vivo IQOO (Chrome 74) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (1852 - 2611, n=19) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (388 - 9999, n=173, last 2 years) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (84.4 - 120, n=17) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
| Vivo IQOO (Chrome 74) | |
| Nokia 8.1 (Chrome 71) | |
| Google Pixel 3a XL (Chrome 73) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Vivo IQOO | Sony Xperia 10 Plus | Xiaomi Mi 9 | Nokia 8.1 | Google Pixel 3a XL | Average 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -36% | 154% | -46% | 32% | 114% | 391% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 795 | 280.3 -65% | 666 -16% | 279.3 -65% | 315.6 -60% | 760 ? -4% | 1505 ? 89% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 194.2 | 205.2 6% | 388.3 100% | 203.8 5% | 179.1 -8% | 297 ? 53% | 1112 ? 473% |
| Random Read 4KB | 147.5 | 77.7 -47% | 149.4 1% | 69.9 -53% | 92.1 -38% | 152.9 ? 4% | 247 ? 67% |
| Random Write 4KB | 26.2 | 16.77 -36% | 165.3 531% | 7.3 -72% | 87 232% | 131.6 ? 402% | 271 ? 934% |
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 44.7 °C / 112 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 40.7 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 32.3 °C / 90 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
Vivo IQOO audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (26.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 61% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 33% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 77% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 19% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Xiaomi Mi 9 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 8% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 86% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 27% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 65% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| Av/Standby |   0 / 0.1 Watt |
| Låg belastning |  1.2 / 2.2 / 2.6 Watt |
| Hög belastning |
4.8 / 8.5 Watt |
    
| |
| Vivo IQOO 4000 mAh | Sony Xperia 10 Plus 3000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9 3300 mAh | Nokia 8.1 3500 mAh | Google Pixel 3a XL 3700 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 22% | 30% | 33% | 39% | 17% | 16% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 1.2 | 0.68 43% | 0.67 44% | 0.8 33% | 0.7 42% | 0.939 ? 22% | 0.897 ? 25% |
| Idle Average * | 2.2 | 2.12 4% | 1.26 43% | 1.5 32% | 1.63 26% | 1.506 ? 32% | 1.452 ? 34% |
| Idle Maximum * | 2.6 | 2.17 17% | 1.29 50% | 1.8 31% | 1.67 36% | 1.799 ? 31% | 1.629 ? 37% |
| Load Average * | 4.8 | 3.82 20% | 3.71 23% | 3.2 33% | 2.64 45% | 4.61 ? 4% | 5.55 ? -16% |
| Load Maximum * | 8.5 | 6.44 24% | 9.3 -9% | 5.4 36% | 4.62 46% | 9.04 ? -6% | 8.31 ? 2% |
* ... smaller is better
| Vivo IQOO 4000 mAh | Sony Xperia 10 Plus 3000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9 3300 mAh | Nokia 8.1 3500 mAh | Google Pixel 3a XL 3700 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | |||||
| WiFi v1.3 | 1085 | 635 -41% | 546 -50% | 738 -32% | 709 -35% |
För
Emot
Läs den fullständiga versionen av den här recensionen på engelska här.
Vivo IQOO lever upp till sitt mål om att vara en billig speltelefon, trots sina brister. Den stora och ljusstarka skärmen är fängslande, vilket Vivo har understrukit med en kraftfull SoC. De extra tryckkänsliga knapparna på telefonens kant är en kul idé, även om de inte direkt är nödvändiga. Xiaomi Mi 9 får ut mer av sin Snapdragon 855 än vad IQOO får, men vår recensionsenhet klarade utan problem av alla moderna och komplexa mobilspel.
Vivo IQOO är en kraftfull speltelefon med en skaplig uppsättning kameror, men du får kämpa för att använda den om du inte kan läsa Kinesiska.
Det var smart att inkludera ett batteri på 4.000 mAh, då IQOO drar mer energi än sina gelikar. IQOO håller sig en hel dag mellan laddningarna, även om stödet för Quick Charge innebär att du inte behöver sitta fast vid nätuttaget allt för länge.
Vidare har IQOO en gedigen uppsättning kameror som levererar skapliga resultat när det är ljust. Underligt nog härstammar de största problemen vi har med IQOO från dess styrkor. Vår recensionsenhet blev varm och led av hög energiförbrukning, men det är oftast det man får betala för konsekvent prestanda i spel. Svag WiFi-prestanda kommer nog däremot få en del gamers att tänka en extra gång, precis som det dåligt översatta operativsystemet. I korthet så är Vivo IQOO en nedtonad speltelefon med mycket som talar till dess fördel. Begränsad LTE-täckning och ett OS som är fyllt av Kinesiska hindrar den dock från att utmana de bästa speltelefonerna på marknaden.
Vivo IQOO
-
06/20/2019 v6(old)
Mike Wobker