Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Chinese
MagyarTest: Vivo Nex Ultimate Smartphone (Sammanfattning)
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| LG G7 ThinQ | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| Vivo Nex Ultimate | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| LG G7 ThinQ | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| Vivo Nex Ultimate | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 95 %
Mitt på batteriet: 356 cd/m²
Kontrast: ∞:1 (Svärta: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 7.08 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 4.7 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
95.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.096
| Vivo Nex Ultimate Super AMOLED, 2316x1080, 6.59 | Samsung Galaxy Note 8 Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.30 | LG G7 ThinQ IPS, 3120x1440, 6.10 | Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S IPS, 2160x1080, 5.99 | OnePlus 6 Optic AMOLED, 2280x1080, 6.28 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 45% | 63% | 32% | 37% | |
| Brightness middle | 356 | 530 49% | 974 174% | 492 38% | 430 21% |
| Brightness | 352 | 536 52% | 975 177% | 463 32% | 437 24% |
| Brightness Distribution | 95 | 93 -2% | 96 1% | 90 -5% | 87 -8% |
| Black Level * | 0.49 | 0.59 | |||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 7.08 | 2.6 63% | 5.4 24% | 2.4 66% | 2.3 68% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 14.1 | 5.1 64% | 13.1 7% | 6.2 56% | 4.6 67% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 4.7 | 2.7 43% | 5 -6% | 4.5 4% | 2.4 49% |
| Gamma | 2.096 105% | 2.04 108% | 2.31 95% | 2.25 98% | 2.28 96% |
| CCT | 7297 89% | 6206 105% | 7480 87% | 6395 102% | 6160 106% |
| Contrast | 1988 | 834 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 117.9 Hz |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 117.9 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 117.9 Hz is very low, so the flickering may cause eyestrain and headaches after extended use. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17900 (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 | ||
| 10 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 5 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 5 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 18 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms). | ||
| AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Vivo Nex Ultimate | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| LG G7 ThinQ | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (162183 - 242953, n=23) | |
| AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Vivo Nex Ultimate | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| LG G7 ThinQ | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (246366 - 299878, n=27) | |
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Vivo Nex Ultimate | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| LG G7 ThinQ | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (21 - 59, n=27) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 158, n=185, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Vivo Nex Ultimate | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| LG G7 ThinQ | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (32 - 61, n=28) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (6.2 - 279, n=185, last 2 years) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
| LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66) | |
| OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (22.5 - 90.9, n=25) | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S (Chrome 66.0.3359.158) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0) | |
| Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 89112, n=213, last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66) | |
| LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3991 - 18275, n=28) | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S (Chrome 66.0.3359.158) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0) | |
| Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2154 - 11204, n=28) | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S (Chrome 66.0.3359.158) | |
| LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66) | |
| OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (388 - 9999, n=173, last 2 years) | |
| WebXPRT 2015 - Overall | |
| OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66) | |
| LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (96 - 291, n=23) | |
| Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S (Chrome 66.0.3359.158) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0) | |
| Vivo Nex Ultimate (Chrome 67) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Vivo Nex Ultimate | Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | LG G7 ThinQ | Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S | OnePlus 6 | Average 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -8% | -8% | 122% | 0% | 162% | 434% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 687 | 797 16% | 695 1% | 756 10% | 726 6% | 826 ? 20% | 1508 ? 120% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 228.4 | 205.9 -10% | 176.4 -23% | 208.1 -9% | 201.4 -12% | 358 ? 57% | 1118 ? 389% |
| Random Read 4KB | 126.7 | 122.5 -3% | 110.5 -13% | 135.1 7% | 137 8% | 166.6 ? 31% | 247 ? 95% |
| Random Write 4KB | 22.1 | 14.55 -34% | 23.26 5% | 128.4 481% | 21.8 -1% | 141.5 ? 540% | 272 ? 1131% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 67.9 ? | 84.7 ? | 66.8 ? | ||||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 59.3 ? | 62.7 ? | 56.3 ? |
| Arena of Valor | |||
| Inställningar | Värde | ||
| min | 60 fps | ||
| high HD | 60 fps | ||
| Asphalt 8: Airborne | |||
| Inställningar | Värde | ||
| high | 30 fps | ||
| very low | 29 fps | ||
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 45.9 °C / 115 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 43.6 °C / 110 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 30.8 °C / 87 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
Vivo Nex Ultimate audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 65.5% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 65.5% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 65.5% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (115% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 85% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 11% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 95% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 3% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Samsung Galaxy Note 8 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.6% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 40% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 53% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 59% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 34% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| Av/Standby |   0.4 / 0.6 Watt |
| Låg belastning |  0.9 / 1.5 / 1.7 Watt |
| Hög belastning |
3.7 / 7.2 Watt |
    
| |
| Vivo Nex Ultimate 4000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy Note 8 3300 mAh | LG G7 ThinQ 3000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S 3400 mAh | OnePlus 6 3300 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 8% | -24% | -26% | 7% | -19% | -12% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.9 | 0.73 19% | 1.16 -29% | 0.75 17% | 0.6 33% | 0.862 ? 4% | 0.897 ? -0% |
| Idle Average * | 1.5 | 1.44 4% | 1.98 -32% | 2.25 -50% | 1 33% | 1.728 ? -15% | 1.452 ? 3% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.7 | 1.53 10% | 2.07 -22% | 2.26 -33% | 1.6 6% | 2.07 ? -22% | 1.629 ? 4% |
| Load Average * | 3.7 | 4.56 -23% | 4.51 -22% | 4.89 -32% | 4.3 -16% | 4.87 ? -32% | 5.55 ? -50% |
| Load Maximum * | 7.2 | 5.09 29% | 8.3 -15% | 9.6 -33% | 8.6 -19% | 9.27 ? -29% | 8.31 ? -15% |
* ... smaller is better
| Vivo Nex Ultimate 4000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy Note 8 3300 mAh | LG G7 ThinQ 3000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S 3400 mAh | OnePlus 6 3300 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -29% | -12% | -16% | -10% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1925 | 1134 -41% | 1662 -14% | 1678 -13% | 1806 -6% |
| H.264 | 1133 | 662 -42% | 908 -20% | 718 -37% | 791 -30% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 1026 | 474 -54% | 591 -42% | 716 -30% | 762 -26% |
| Load | 203 | 246 21% | 260 28% | 239 18% | 246 21% |
För
Emot
Läs den fullständiga versionen av den här recensionen på engelska här.
Vivo Nex Ultimate är en fascinerande smartphone: För det första visar den upp dom kommande årens teknologi. För det andra visar den att Kinesiska tillverkare kan leverera ett prydligt översatt operativsystem och andra anpassningar för den västerländska marknaden. Och det finns så många saker att titta på: den utfällbara framåtriktade kameran som glider fram med ett futuristiskt ljud, fingeravtrycksläsaren och högtalaren som båda gömmer sig bakom skärmen och höljet som skimrar i regnbågens alla färger. Dessutom har den hög prestanda och bra kameror.
Trots all fascination får du inte glömma att du inte får en perfekt telefon för priset på 6.900 kronor: Höljet ser tjusigt ut men är gjort av ett material som känns alldagligt, den har långsammare WiFi än andra toppskiktsenheter och dess GPS kunde varit mer exakt. Högtalaren är inte den bästa. Dess SoC erbjuder hög prestanda, men den stryps markant vid belastning. Skärmen är aningen mörk och flimmrar en del vid låga ljusstyrkenivåer. Det tar ett tag för fingeravtrycksläsaren att känna igen ett finger, om den lyckas känna igen det överhuvudtaget.
Infattningsfri, fullpackad med den senaste tekniken och väldigt tjusig: Detta är Vivo Nex Ultimate. Den är inte perfekt, men kan verkligen rekommenderas åt teknikentusiaster, eller personer som vill bli sådana.
Men batteritiden är helt enkelt fantastisk: Efter 17 timmar av ihållande webbsurfande över WiFi utan ett eluttag inom räckvidd kanske man kan förlåta en del av telefonens brister. Därför kan vi rekommendera Vivo Nex Ultimate till alla som kan leva med några mindre tillkortakommanden och som letar efter en smartphone som står ut från mängden och har innovativa funktioner.
Vivo Nex Ultimate
-
07/23/2018 v6(old)
Florian Wimmer