C 2018
Notebookcheck

Test: Xiaomi Black Shark Smartphone (Sammanfattning)

Florian Wimmer, 👁 Florian Schmitt, Tanja Hinum-Balaz (översatt av Daniel Eriksson), 07/24/2018

En gamers dröm blir sann? Xiaomi Black Shark är en speltelefon som har ett vattenbaserat kylsystem, ett metallhölje i industriell design och en gamepad som tillbehör. Borde gamers bli tårögda över denna telefon eller är det bara eccentriker som kommer att importera den från Kina? Få reda på det i vår recension.

Xiaomi Black Shark
Minne
6144 MB 
Skärm
5.99 tum 2:1, 2160 x 1080 pixlar 403 PPI, kapacitiv tryckkänslig, IPS, glansig: ja
Hårddisk
64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 64 GB 
, 58 GB ledigt
Anslutningar
1 USB 2.0, Ljudanslutningar: ljudutgång via USB C, 1 Fingeravtrycksläsare, Brightness Sensor, Sensorer: accelerationssensor, gyroskop, närhetssensor, kompass, USB C
Nätverk
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM (850/​900/​1800/​1900), UMTS (850/900/1900/2100MHz), LTE (1/3/4/5/7/8/12/38/39/40/41)), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Storlek
höjd x bredd x djup (i mm) 9.3 x 161.6 x 75.4
Batteri
15.2 Wh, 4000 mAh Litiumjon, Quick Charge 3.0
Operativsystem
Android 8.0 Oreo
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix f/​1.75, fasdetekterande AF, dubbel LED-blixt, video @2160p/​30fps (huvudkamera); 20.0MP, f/​1.75, skärpedjup (sekundär kamera)
Secondary Camera: 20 MPix f/​2.2, video @1080p/​30fps
Övrigt
Högtalare: högtalare på nedre kanten, Tangentbord: virtuellt tangentbord, nätadapter, USB-kabel, USB C till 3.5mm-adapter, SIM-verktyg, stötfångare, rengöringsduk, LTE Cat. 18: upp till 1.2 GBit/s (nerladdning), 200 MBit/s (uppladdning); SAR-värde 0.523 W/kg (huvud), fanless
Vikt
190 g, Strömförsörjning: 68 g
Pris
419 Kr
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Xiaomi Black Shark Gaming Phone
Xiaomi Black Shark Gaming Phone
Xiaomi Black Shark Gaming Phone
Xiaomi Black Shark Gaming Phone
Xiaomi Black Shark Gaming Phone
Xiaomi Black Shark Gaming Phone
Xiaomi Black Shark Gaming Phone

Size Comparison

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Razer Phone 2017
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
665 MBit/s ∼100% +473%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
652 MBit/s ∼98% +462%
OnePlus 6
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
609 MBit/s ∼92% +425%
Honor 10
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
210 MBit/s ∼32% +81%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=279)
199 MBit/s ∼30% +72%
Xiaomi Black Shark
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
116 MBit/s ∼17%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Razer Phone 2017
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
661 MBit/s ∼100% +465%
OnePlus 6
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
612 MBit/s ∼93% +423%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
519 MBit/s ∼79% +344%
Honor 10
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
236 MBit/s ∼36% +102%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=279)
195 MBit/s ∼30% +67%
Xiaomi Black Shark
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
117 MBit/s ∼18%
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Översikt
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Översikt
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Skogsdunge
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Skogsdunge
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Bro
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Bro
GPS Xiaomi Black Shark – Översikt
GPS Xiaomi Black Shark – Översikt
GPS Xiaomi Black Shark – Skogsdunge
GPS Xiaomi Black Shark – Skogsdunge
GPS Xiaomi Black Shark – Bro
GPS Xiaomi Black Shark – Bro

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
526
cd/m²
531
cd/m²
551
cd/m²
539
cd/m²
549
cd/m²
549
cd/m²
543
cd/m²
550
cd/m²
530
cd/m²
Distribution av ljusstyrkan
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Max: 551 cd/m² Medel: 540.9 cd/m² Minimum: 2.4 cd/m²
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 95 %
Mitt på batteriet: 549 cd/m²
Kontrast: 1307:1 (Svärta: 0.42 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.08 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.3
ΔE Greyscale 6.6 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
100% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.305
Xiaomi Black Shark
IPS, 2160x1080, 5.99
Razer Phone 2017
IGZO LCD, 120 Hz, Wide Color Gamut, 1440x2560, 5.72
OnePlus 6
Optic AMOLED, 2280x1080, 6.28
Honor 10
IPS, 2280x1080, 5.84
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.2
Screen
25%
22%
20%
33%
Brightness middle
549
436
-21%
430
-22%
555
1%
565
3%
Brightness
541
417
-23%
437
-19%
537
-1%
571
6%
Brightness Distribution
95
92
-3%
87
-8%
94
-1%
96
1%
Black Level *
0.42
0.16
62%
0.39
7%
Contrast
1307
2725
108%
1423
9%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
6.08
3.88
36%
2.3
62%
2.3
62%
2.3
62%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
10.69
7.96
26%
4.6
57%
6
44%
4.8
55%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
6.6
5.8
12%
2.4
64%
3.9
41%
1.9
71%
Gamma
2.305 95%
2.45 90%
2.28 96%
2.19 100%
2.16 102%
CCT
8399 77%
7657 85%
6160 106%
6212 105%
6332 103%

* ... 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 2358 Hz ≤ 15 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 2358 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 15 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 2358 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8677 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

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
40 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 23 ms rise
↘ 17 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 96 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (25.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
48 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 25 ms rise
↘ 23 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 78 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (41.1 ms).
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
230642 Points ∼100%
OnePlus 6
230421 Points ∼100% 0%
Honor 10
174272 Points ∼76% -24%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
222290 Points ∼96% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (162183 - 232931, n=11)
221422 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (23275 - 250848, n=366)
72912 Points ∼32% -68%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
290397 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
208972 Points ∼72% -28%
OnePlus 6
266686 Points ∼92% -8%
Honor 10
205297 Points ∼71% -29%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
250577 Points ∼86% -14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (246366 - 290397, n=15)
269351 Points ∼93% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (17073 - 348178, n=145)
111758 Points ∼38% -62%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
8309 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
7046 Points ∼85% -15%
OnePlus 6
8282 Points ∼100% 0%
Honor 10
7046 Points ∼85% -15%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
5319 Points ∼64% -36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7360 - 9868, n=15)
8225 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (6998 - 9868, n=233)
4440 Points ∼53% -47%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Razer Phone 2017
7968 Points ∼81%
OnePlus 6
9630 Points ∼98%
Honor 10
8530 Points ∼87%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
5822 Points ∼59%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7998 - 13211, n=13)
9824 Points ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone (4147 - 13211, n=396)
4801 Points ∼49%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
1243 Points ∼90%
Razer Phone 2017
1225 Points ∼88% -1%
OnePlus 6
1386 Points ∼100% +12%
Honor 10
1316 Points ∼95% +6%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
1109 Points ∼80% -11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (1009 - 1613, n=13)
1356 Points ∼98% +9%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1731, n=471)
680 Points ∼49% -45%
Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
5846 Points ∼74%
Razer Phone 2017
6273 Points ∼79% +7%
OnePlus 6
7949 Points ∼100% +36%
Honor 10
4397 Points ∼55% -25%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
6370 Points ∼80% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5846 - 7965, n=13)
7736 Points ∼97% +32%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 15875, n=471)
1622 Points ∼20% -72%
Memory (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
2871 Points ∼70%
Razer Phone 2017
4085 Points ∼100% +42%
OnePlus 6
3799 Points ∼93% +32%
Honor 10
3808 Points ∼93% +33%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2625 Points ∼64% -9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2193 - 4798, n=13)
3442 Points ∼84% +20%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 4798, n=471)
1171 Points ∼29% -59%
System (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
7105 Points ∼86%
Razer Phone 2017
5660 Points ∼69% -20%
OnePlus 6
8228 Points ∼100% +16%
Honor 10
5882 Points ∼71% -17%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
6413 Points ∼78% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5792 - 8435, n=13)
7672 Points ∼93% +8%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 12202, n=471)
2367 Points ∼29% -67%
Overall (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
3489 Points ∼81%
Razer Phone 2017
3651 Points ∼85% +5%
OnePlus 6
4308 Points ∼100% +23%
Honor 10
3374 Points ∼78% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3302 Points ∼77% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3489 - 4478, n=13)
4056 Points ∼94% +16%
Average of class Smartphone (150 - 6097, n=475)
1185 Points ∼28% -66%
Geekbench 4.1/4.2
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
13620 Points ∼98%
Razer Phone 2017
7931 Points ∼57% -42%
Honor 10
8634 Points ∼62% -37%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
6202 Points ∼45% -54%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (12493 - 14417, n=12)
13856 Points ∼100% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (836 - 14417, n=170)
4186 Points ∼30% -69%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
8453 Points ∼94%
Razer Phone 2017
6742 Points ∼75% -20%
Honor 10
6610 Points ∼74% -22%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
8963 Points ∼100% +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7983 - 9182, n=14)
8707 Points ∼97% +3%
Average of class Smartphone (1099 - 11598, n=220)
4163 Points ∼46% -51%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
2437 Points ∼65%
Razer Phone 2017
1942 Points ∼51% -20%
Honor 10
1890 Points ∼50% -22%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3776 Points ∼100% +55%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2330 - 2468, n=14)
2441 Points ∼65% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (394 - 4824, n=221)
1229 Points ∼33% -50%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
3408 Points ∼99%
Razer Phone 2017
3157 Points ∼92% -7%
OnePlus 6
3432 Points ∼100% +1%
Honor 10
2582 Points ∼75% -24%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2469 Points ∼72% -28%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2118 - 3669, n=14)
3196 Points ∼93% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (549 - 4183, n=325)
1588 Points ∼46% -53%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
5220 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
4049 Points ∼78% -22%
OnePlus 6
5212 Points ∼100% 0%
Honor 10
2993 Points ∼57% -43%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3582 Points ∼69% -31%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3488 - 5220, n=14)
4908 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (69 - 5220, n=325)
1124 Points ∼22% -78%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
4668 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
3810 Points ∼82% -18%
OnePlus 6
4673 Points ∼100% 0%
Honor 10
2891 Points ∼62% -38%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3256 Points ∼70% -30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3197 - 4734, n=14)
4370 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (86 - 4734, n=333)
1075 Points ∼23% -77%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
3443 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
3092 Points ∼90% -10%
OnePlus 6
3452 Points ∼100% 0%
Honor 10
2773 Points ∼80% -19%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2496 Points ∼72% -28%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2159 - 3642, n=14)
3001 Points ∼87% -13%
Average of class Smartphone (532 - 4150, n=356)
1484 Points ∼43% -57%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
8312 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
6127 Points ∼74% -26%
OnePlus 6
8252 Points ∼99% -1%
Honor 10
3573 Points ∼43% -57%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
4637 Points ∼56% -44%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5637 - 8312, n=14)
7753 Points ∼93% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (104 - 8312, n=356)
1527 Points ∼18% -82%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
6324 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
5030 Points ∼80% -20%
OnePlus 6
6304 Points ∼100% 0%
Honor 10
3358 Points ∼53% -47%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3895 Points ∼62% -38%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4529 - 6378, n=14)
5712 Points ∼90% -10%
Average of class Smartphone (127 - 6378, n=364)
1304 Points ∼21% -79%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
31384 Points ∼92%
Razer Phone 2017
21521 Points ∼63% -31%
OnePlus 6
34191 Points ∼100% +9%
Honor 10
21070 Points ∼62% -33%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
26226 Points ∼77% -16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (27817 - 36762, n=14)
33715 Points ∼99% +7%
Average of class Smartphone (7095 - 36762, n=511)
12516 Points ∼37% -60%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
82423 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
58360 Points ∼71% -29%
OnePlus 6
81269 Points ∼99% -1%
Honor 10
32674 Points ∼40% -60%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
46610 Points ∼57% -43%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (76078 - 84681, n=14)
80769 Points ∼98% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (2465 - 160199, n=511)
16923 Points ∼21% -79%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
60543 Points ∼97%
Razer Phone 2017
42278 Points ∼68% -30%
OnePlus 6
62241 Points ∼100% +3%
Honor 10
29111 Points ∼47% -52%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
39745 Points ∼64% -34%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (56669 - 64592, n=14)
61576 Points ∼99% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (2915 - 77599, n=512)
14348 Points ∼23% -76%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
151 fps ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
117 fps ∼77% -23%
OnePlus 6
150 fps ∼99% -1%
Honor 10
124 fps ∼82% -18%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
147 fps ∼97% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (98 - 151, n=15)
143 fps ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 251, n=537)
29.5 fps ∼20% -80%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
60 fps ∼76%
Razer Phone 2017
79 fps ∼100% +32%
OnePlus 6
60 fps ∼76% 0%
Honor 10
59 fps ∼75% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
60 fps ∼76% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (58 - 60, n=14)
59.8 fps ∼76% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (6.9 - 120, n=540)
24.2 fps ∼31% -60%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
82 fps ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
43 fps ∼52% -48%
OnePlus 6
66 fps ∼80% -20%
Honor 10
59 fps ∼72% -28%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
74 fps ∼90% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (54 - 83, n=14)
73.9 fps ∼90% -10%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 115, n=459)
15.8 fps ∼19% -81%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
59 fps ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
40 fps ∼68% -32%
OnePlus 6
58 fps ∼98% -2%
Honor 10
50 fps ∼85% -15%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
45 fps ∼76% -24%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (35 - 59, n=14)
54.9 fps ∼93% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 115, n=462)
15.3 fps ∼26% -74%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
60 fps ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
21 fps ∼35% -65%
OnePlus 6
56 fps ∼93% -7%
Honor 10
39 fps ∼65% -35%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
47 fps ∼78% -22%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (32 - 60.9, n=15)
53.9 fps ∼90% -10%
Average of class Smartphone (1.3 - 69.3, n=324)
13.4 fps ∼22% -78%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
53 fps ∼98%
Razer Phone 2017
22 fps ∼41% -58%
OnePlus 6
54 fps ∼100% +2%
Honor 10
34 fps ∼63% -36%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
24 fps ∼44% -55%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (26 - 59, n=14)
49 fps ∼91% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (2.6 - 110, n=326)
13.3 fps ∼25% -75%
GFXBench
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
35 fps ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
25 fps ∼71% -29%
OnePlus 6
35 fps ∼100% 0%
Honor 10
23 fps ∼66% -34%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
28 fps ∼80% -20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (25 - 35, n=14)
34.1 fps ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (0.72 - 40, n=254)
9.31 fps ∼27% -73%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Black Shark
31 fps ∼97%
Razer Phone 2017
15 fps ∼47% -52%
OnePlus 6
32 fps ∼100% +3%
Honor 10
20 fps ∼63% -35%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
14 fps ∼44% -55%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (17 - 37, n=14)
29.9 fps ∼93% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (1.1 - 50, n=257)
8.44 fps ∼26% -73%

Legend

 
Xiaomi Black Shark Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Razer Phone 2017 Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
OnePlus 6 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Honor 10 HiSilicon Kirin 970, ARM Mali-G72 MP12, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus Samsung Exynos 9810, ARM Mali-G72 MP18, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
Octane V2 - Total Score
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
17026 Points ∼100% +25%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
15233 Points ∼89% +11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3991 - 17131, n=15)
14744 Points ∼87% +8%
Xiaomi Black Shark (Firefox 61)
13663 Points ∼80%
Razer Phone 2017 (Chrome 65)
12600 Points ∼74% -8%
Honor 10 (Chrome 66)
10965 Points ∼64% -20%
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 43280, n=530)
5305 Points ∼31% -61%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (603 - 59466, n=549)
11710 ms * ∼100% -412%
Honor 10 (Chrome 66)
3899 ms * ∼33% -70%
Razer Phone 2017 (Chrome 65)
3476 ms * ∼30% -52%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2264 - 11204, n=15)
3122 ms * ∼27% -37%
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
2445 ms * ∼21% -7%
Xiaomi Black Shark (Firefox 61)
2287 ms * ∼20%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
2077.8 ms * ∼18% +9%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
252 Points ∼100% +2%
Xiaomi Black Shark (Firefox 61)
246 Points ∼98%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (96 - 291, n=14)
237 Points ∼94% -4%
Honor 10 (Chrome 66)
182 Points ∼72% -26%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
163 Points ∼65% -34%
Average of class Smartphone (27 - 362, n=264)
106 Points ∼42% -57%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
98 Points ∼100% +9%
Xiaomi Black Shark (Firefox 61)
90 Points ∼92%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (19 - 101, n=9)
75.2 Points ∼77% -16%
Honor 10 (Chrome 66)
69 Points ∼70% -23%
Samsung Galaxy S9
63 Points ∼64% -30%
Average of class Smartphone (37 - 159, n=44)
60.1 Points ∼61% -33%

* ... smaller is better

Xiaomi Black SharkRazer Phone 2017OnePlus 6Honor 10Samsung Galaxy S9 PlusAverage 64 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-19%
-19%
17%
-16%
-15%
-73%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
52.5
67.18 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
50.5 (17.1 - 71.9, n=23)
44.7 (3.4 - 87.1, n=301)
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
79.4
79.22 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
66.9 (18 - 85.3, n=23)
63 (8.2 - 96.5, n=301)
Random Write 4KB
114.1
14.3
-87%
21.8
-81%
163
43%
22.74
-80%
46.8 (8.77 - 156, n=30)
-59%
14.8 (0.14 - 164, n=580)
-87%
Random Read 4KB
127.2
142.5
12%
137
8%
145.88
15%
129.68
2%
134 (78.2 - 173, n=30)
5%
36.4 (1.59 - 173, n=580)
-71%
Sequential Write 256KB
199.6
202.5
1%
201.4
1%
192.12
-4%
204.94
3%
191 (133 - 214, n=30)
-4%
75.8 (2.99 - 242, n=580)
-62%
Sequential Read 256KB
741.5
732.3
-1%
725.6
-2%
827.69
12%
818.69
10%
730 (529 - 895, n=30)
-2%
222 (12.1 - 895, n=580)
-70%
Arena of Valor
 InställningarVärde
 high HD60 fps
 high HD60 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Minecraft - Pocket Edition
 InställningarVärde
 fancy graphics, beautiful skies, 74% viewing range60 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Hög belastning
 49.5 °C45.3 °C43.7 °C 
 45.8 °C44.9 °C43.5 °C 
 45.6 °C45.2 °C43.3 °C 
Max: 49.5 °C
Medel: 45.2 °C
40.1 °C41.8 °C43.2 °C
40.4 °C42.2 °C43.6 °C
40.5 °C41.9 °C43.3 °C
Max: 43.6 °C
Medel: 41.9 °C
Strömförsörjning (max.)  40.1 °C | Rumstemperatur 22 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2032.736.52530.134.83130.534.44031.134.75033.737.76326.736.18024.235.110022.928.612519.430.816018.141.820017.750.425016.554.331514.255.940013.659.750013.76163012.463.280012.463.71000126412501262.3160011.563.1200011.661.4250011.457.6315011.355.6400011.353.5500011.359.8630011.561.6800011.561.71000011.556.41250011.454.71600011.352.2SPL52.324.272.9N8.80.632.2median 12median 57.6Delta1.6629.525.929.526.427.726.426.526.526.526.628.326.625.525.225.523.922.723.926.523.626.533.623.333.640.230.540.245.821.145.852.420.652.455.322.955.357.921.157.960.921.560.964.822.364.869.117.569.171.520.171.569.719.969.77018.27069.51669.570.715.770.771.614.871.669.614.569.666.914.266.968146867.813.867.868.913.968.966.51466.562.71462.758.613.858.681.229.381.251.51.251.5median 66.9median 17.5median 66.97.13.57.1hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseXiaomi Black SharkRazer Phone 2017
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Xiaomi Black Shark audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (72.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 14% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (6.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (14.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 0% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 99% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 13% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 84% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Razer Phone 2017 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 19.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (14.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 1% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 15% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 81% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Strömförbrukning
Av/Standbydarklight 0.05 / 0.1 Watt
Låg belastningdarkmidlight 0.8 / 1.5 / 2.3 Watt
Hög belastning midlight 4.8 / 10.1 Watt
 color bar
Förklaring: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Xiaomi Black Shark
4000 mAh
Razer Phone 2017
4000 mAh
OnePlus 6
3300 mAh
Honor 10
3400 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3500 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-7%
23%
-15%
32%
-5%
9%
Idle Minimum *
0.8
0.83
-4%
0.6
25%
1.12
-40%
0.68
15%
0.845 (0.42 - 1.8, n=12)
-6%
0.884 (0.2 - 3.4, n=613)
-11%
Idle Average *
1.5
2.11
-41%
1
33%
2.26
-51%
0.95
37%
1.953 (1 - 2.9, n=12)
-30%
1.725 (0.6 - 6.2, n=612)
-15%
Idle Maximum *
2.3
2.24
3%
1.6
30%
2.3
-0%
1.09
53%
2.26 (1.57 - 3.5, n=12)
2%
1.997 (0.74 - 6.6, n=613)
13%
Load Average *
4.8
4.94
-3%
4.3
10%
5.14
-7%
4.58
5%
4.87 (3.7 - 7.1, n=12)
-1%
4.03 (0.8 - 10.8, n=607)
16%
Load Maximum *
10.1
9.08
10%
8.6
15%
7.89
22%
5.16
49%
9.18 (6.87 - 11.2, n=12)
9%
5.7 (1.2 - 14.2, n=607)
44%

* ... smaller is better

Batteritid
Låg belastning (utan WLAN, min. ljusstyrka)
29tim 13min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
11tim 51min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
12tim 27min
Hög belastning (maximal ljusstyrka)
4tim 13min
Xiaomi Black Shark
4000 mAh
Razer Phone 2017
4000 mAh
OnePlus 6
3300 mAh
Honor 10
3400 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3500 mAh
Battery Runtime
7%
3%
-17%
-17%
Reader / Idle
1753
1806
3%
1162
-34%
1343
-23%
H.264
747
791
6%
662
-11%
674
-10%
WiFi v1.3
711
762
7%
762
7%
663
-7%
521
-27%
Load
253
246
-3%
216
-15%
237
-6%

För

+ extremt snabb
+ lågt pris
+ extravagant chassi av hög kvalitet
+ skärm med hög färgrymdstäckning
+ ljusstark skärm
+ bra kameror
+ hög spelprestanda
+ lång batteritid

Emot

- skärmen stödjer inte snabb bilduppdatering
- långsam WiFi
- ingen microSD-plats
- ingen 3.5 mm ljudanslutning
- saknar LTE-band för Europa
- ingen garanti
- blir rejält varm vid belastning
- skärm med långsamma responstider
- mjukvaran finns bara på engelska
Recenseras: Xiaomi Black Shark Gaming Phone. Recensionsex från Trading Shenzhen Shop.
Recenseras: Xiaomi Black Shark Gaming Phone. Recensionsex från Trading Shenzhen Shop.

Läs den fullständiga versionen av den här recensionen på engelska här.

Med tanke på att Xiaomi Black Shark för tillfället inte finns tillgänglig i en internationell version så är andra speltelefoner troligen ett förnuftigare val för europeiska köpare: Black Shark kräver att användaren installerar Googles tjänster manuellt och mjukvaran finns bara tillgänglig på engelska med bitar av kinesiska här och var. Det är tveksamt om användaren kan ansluta till europeiska LTE-nätverk. Den har långsamt WiFi och garantin är frånvarande.

Men sen när har spel handlat om att vara förnuftig? Xiaomi Black Shark är extremt tjusig och är en av dom snabbaste telefonerna hittills och har inga problem att nå 60 fps, inte ens i mer krävande spel. Den är dessutom ganska billig, så egentligen är den inte särskilt oförnuftig.

Xiaomi Black Shark är inte en speltelefon för alla, men den är en exceptionell enhet med massor av kraft och ett utmärkt hölje.

Vid direkt jämförelse med Razer Phone 2017 är Black Sharks största nackdel skärmens låga fps-maximum. Razer Phone är totalt sett ett mer välavrundat paket. Men Xiaomis exotiska spelenhet drar till sig mer uppmärksamhet, så vi kan definitivt rekommendera den åt gamers som föredrar en aning individualism och som inte har något emot att justera sin enhets mjukvara en aning.

Xiaomi Black Shark - 07/13/2018 v6
Florian Wimmer

Design
90%
Tangentbord
66 / 75 → 88%
Mus
89%
Anslutningar
40 / 60 → 66%
Vikt
89%
Batteri
94%
Skärm
85%
Spelprestanda
64 / 63 → 100%
Programprestanda
66 / 70 → 94%
Temperatur
83%
Ljudnivå
100%
Audio
64 / 91 → 70%
Camera
77%
Medel
77%
86%
Smartphone - Vägt medel

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Bärbara datorer, laptops - tester och nyheter > Tester > Test: Xiaomi Black Shark Smartphone (Sammanfattning)
Florian Wimmer, 2018-07-24 (Update: 2018-07-24)