Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Chinese
MagyarTest: Xiaomi Mi 10T - Flaggskeppskraft till lågpris (Sammanfattning)
Testgrupp
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 86.3 % | 12/2020 | Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G SD 865, Adreno 650 | 216 g | 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
| 88.5 % | 04/2020 | OnePlus 8 Pro SD 865, Adreno 650 | 199 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.78" | 3168x1440 | |
| 86.6 % | 06/2020 | Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro SD 865, Adreno 650 | 219 g | 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
| 87.9 % | 10/2020 | Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G SD 865, Adreno 650 | 190 g | 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
| 81.6 % | 07/2019 | Xiaomi Mi 9T SD 730, Adreno 618 | 191 g | 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.39" | 2340x1080 |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| OnePlus 8 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| OnePlus 8 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G | |
| Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G | |
| Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
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.
Daylight - Scene 1Daylight - Scene 2Wide angle5x zoomLow-light environment
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 92 %
Mitt på batteriet: 614 cd/m²
Kontrast: 1279:1 (Svärta: 0.48 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 0.9 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 1.6 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
97.4% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.2
| Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G IPS, 2400x1080, 6.67 | OnePlus 8 Pro AMOLED, 3168x1440, 6.78 | Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro Super AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.67 | Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G Super AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.50 | Xiaomi Mi 9T AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.39 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 26% | -13% | -31% | -46% | |
| Brightness middle | 614 | 796 30% | 799 30% | 714 16% | 589 -4% |
| Brightness | 593 | 779 31% | 801 35% | 721 22% | 589 -1% |
| Brightness Distribution | 92 | 94 2% | 97 5% | 95 3% | 96 4% |
| Black Level * | 0.48 | ||||
| Contrast | 1279 | ||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 0.9 | 0.68 24% | 1.46 -62% | 1.8 -100% | 2.5 -178% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 2.5 | 1.55 38% | 2.92 -17% | 5.1 -104% | 4.9 -96% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1.6 | 1.1 31% | 2.7 -69% | 2 -25% | 1.6 -0% |
| Gamma | 2.2 100% | 2.237 98% | 2.237 98% | 2.16 102% | 2.24 98% |
| CCT | 6744 96% | 6310 103% | 6003 108% | 6588 99% | 6544 99% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 2381 Hz | ≤ 60 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 2381 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 60 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 2381 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 17900 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 26.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 9.2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 17.6 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 62 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (21.5 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 52.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 25.2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 27.6 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 88 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms). | ||
| AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G | |
| OnePlus 8 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (527301 - 631025, n=24) | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 351, n=173, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G (Chrome 87.0.4280.66) | |
| Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro (Chrome84) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (45.2 - 77, n=20) | |
| OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G (Chrome 81.0.4044.138) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro (Chrome84) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G (Chrome 87.0.4280.66) | |
| OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (74.2 - 145.1, n=21) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G (Chrome 81.0.4044.138) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (14.9 - 445, n=157, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro (Chrome84) | |
| OnePlus 8 Pro (Chome 80) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G (Chrome 87.0.4280.66) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (30.6 - 74.5, n=19) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G (Chrome 81.0.4044.138) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (39 - 304, n=122, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G (Chrome 81.0.4044.138) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (97 - 127, n=23) | |
| OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro (Chrome84) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G (Chrome 87.0.4280.66) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 89112, n=211, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro (Chrome84) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G (Chrome 87.0.4280.66) | |
| OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (14606 - 31224, n=23) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G (Chrome 81.0.4044.138) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G (Chrome 81.0.4044.138) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G (Chrome 87.0.4280.66) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 (1623 - 2911, n=24) | |
| Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro (Chrome84) | |
| OnePlus 8 Pro (Chrome 80) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (388 - 9999, n=173, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G | OnePlus 8 Pro | Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro | Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G | Xiaomi Mi 9T | Average 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -4% | 2% | -3% | -60% | 7% | 20% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 1635 | 1627 0% | 1634 0% | 1528 -7% | 492.7 -70% | 1599 ? -2% | 1505 ? -8% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 722 | 730 1% | 722 0% | 676 -6% | 179.2 -75% | 777 ? 8% | 1112 ? 54% |
| Random Read 4KB | 231 | 208.3 -10% | 229.7 -1% | 228.4 -1% | 128.6 -44% | 244 ? 6% | 247 ? 7% |
| Random Write 4KB | 211.2 | 197.7 -6% | 226.4 7% | 218.4 3% | 107.8 -49% | 245 ? 16% | 271 ? 28% |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 37.6 °C / 100 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 35.4 °C / 96 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.8 °C / 84 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (91.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.2% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 16% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 75% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 38% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 54% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Xiaomi Mi 9T audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (89 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 28.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.9% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 18% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 73% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 40% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 53% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| Av/Standby |   0.01 / 0.18 Watt |
| Låg belastning |  0.52 / 2.11 / 2.24 Watt |
| Hög belastning |
5.5 / 9 Watt |
    
| |
| Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G 5000 mAh | OnePlus 8 Pro 4510 mAh | Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro 4700 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G 4500 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9T 4000 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -89% | -91% | 14% | 39% | -27% | -2% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.52 | 2.2 -323% | 2 -285% | 0.75 -44% | 0.54 -4% | 1.133 ? -118% | 0.897 ? -73% |
| Idle Average * | 2.11 | 3.3 -56% | 3.1 -47% | 1.41 33% | 0.95 55% | 2.23 ? -6% | 1.452 ? 31% |
| Idle Maximum * | 2.24 | 3.7 -65% | 4 -79% | 1.44 36% | 1.08 52% | 2.45 ? -9% | 1.629 ? 27% |
| Load Average * | 5.5 | 5.9 -7% | 6.4 -16% | 3.84 30% | 2.7 51% | 5.26 ? 4% | 5.55 ? -1% |
| Load Maximum * | 9 | 8.3 8% | 11.6 -29% | 7.67 15% | 5.4 40% | 9.68 ? -8% | 8.31 ? 8% |
* ... smaller is better
| Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G 5000 mAh | OnePlus 8 Pro 4510 mAh | Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro 4700 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G 4500 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9T 4000 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -20% | -15% | -25% | -19% | |
| Reader / Idle | 3109 | 2103 -32% | 1954 -37% | 2010 -35% | 2138 -31% |
| H.264 | 1448 | 1023 -29% | 1466 1% | 1232 -15% | 1208 -17% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 1166 | 923 -21% | 923 -21% | 763 -35% | 991 -15% |
| Load | 292 | 296 1% | 286 -2% | 255 -13% | 258 -12% |
För
Emot
Omdöme - Bra alternativ till Xiaomi Mi 10
Läs den fullständiga versionen av den här recensionen på engelska här.
Det var värt att vänta på ett billigare alternativ till Mi 10. Xiaomi Mi 10T på 6.67 tum använder samma toppskikts-SoC i form av en Snapdragon 865 som sin mer avancerade motsvarighet och är därför precis lika snabb. Batteriet på 5.000 mAh hjälper till och med Mi 10T att uppnå totalt sett bättre batteritid. Ett annat unikt säljargument är att den har 144 Hz bilduppdatering. Mi 10 har bara stöd för maximalt 120 Hz.
Xiaomi Mi 10T får poäng för en riktigt snabb SoC, en 144 Hz-skärm, lång batteritid och bra hantverk. Det är bara kameran som inte riktigt lever upp till vad den lovat.
Mi 10T tar samma väg som Mi 9T: istället för att fokusera på toppskiktskomponenter har den också delar från mittenskiktet, vilket sänker priset.
Således har man fått kompromissa, men inte särskilt mycket: Den saknar trådlös laddning, Mi 10T Pro har en bättre kamera och istället för en AMOLED-skärm får man en IPS-variant. Men skärmen gör ändå ett ganska bra jobb och övertygar med hög ljusstyrka och hög kontrast.
Xiaomi Mi 10T är för tillfället en av de billigaste telefonerna som kommer med en Snapdragon 865. Xiaomi Poco F2 Pro är ett alternativ: den har samma SoC, samma formfaktor och är en aning billigare. Dessutom har den en AMOLED-skärm och kommer med en pop-up kamera i likhet med Mi 9T.
Xiaomi Mi 10T 5G
-
11/30/2020 v7
Manuel Masiero
Pricecompare
