Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Chinese
MagyarTest: Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G - Nästan för bra för en Lite-smartphone (Sammanfattning)
Testgrupp
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 85.9 % | 05/2021 | Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G SD 780G 5G, Adreno 642 | 159 g | 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash | 6.55" | 2400x1080 | |
| 83 % | 04/2021 | Samsung Galaxy A52 5G SD 750G 5G, Adreno 619 | 189 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
| 82.5 % | 03/2021 | Oppo Find X3 Lite SD 765G, Adreno 620 | 172 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.43" | 2400x1080 | |
| 83.6 % | 08/2020 | OnePlus Nord SD 765G, Adreno 620 | 184 g | 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.44" | 2440x1080 | |
| 85.4 % | 05/2021 | Motorola Moto G100 SD 870, Adreno 650 | 207 g | 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.70" | 2520x1080 | |
| 84 % | 08/2020 | Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G SD 765G, Adreno 620 | 192 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.57" | 2340x1080 |
| SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | |
Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)
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.
WeitwinkelWeitwinkelLow Light5x-ZoomUltraweitwinkel
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 93 %
Mitt på batteriet: 863 cd/m²
Kontrast: ∞:1 (Svärta: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.2 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 3.9 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
97.5% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.33
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.55 | Samsung Galaxy A52 5G Super AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.50 | Oppo Find X3 Lite OLED, 2400x1080, 6.43 | OnePlus Nord AMOLED, 2440x1080, 6.44 | Motorola Moto G100 IPS/LTPS, 2520x1080, 6.70 | Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.57 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 3% | -15% | 2% | -43% | 17% | |
| Brightness middle | 863 | 744 -14% | 569 -34% | 529 -39% | 562 -35% | 584 -32% |
| Brightness | 860 | 749 -13% | 572 -33% | 531 -38% | 535 -38% | 583 -32% |
| Brightness Distribution | 93 | 98 5% | 97 4% | 94 1% | 90 -3% | 97 4% |
| Black Level * | 0.57 | |||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 3.2 | 2.2 31% | 3.2 -0% | 2.53 21% | 3.99 -25% | 1.17 63% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 5.2 | 7 -35% | 6 -15% | 4.52 13% | 9.74 -87% | 2.95 43% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 3.9 | 2.1 46% | 4.3 -10% | 1.7 56% | 6.5 -67% | 1.7 56% |
| Gamma | 2.33 94% | 2.06 107% | 2.23 99% | 2.249 98% | 2.174 101% | 2.231 99% |
| CCT | 7299 89% | 6516 100% | 6607 98% | 6462 101% | 6882 94% | 6341 103% |
| Contrast | 986 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 367.6 Hz | ≤ 68 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 367.6 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 68 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 367.6 Hz is relatively high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. However, there are reports that some users are still sensitive to PWM at 500 Hz and above, so be aware. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17933 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 1.2 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. » 9 % 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 | ||
| 4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 2 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. » 10 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (33.8 ms). | ||
| AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G | |
| Oppo Find X3 Lite | |
| OnePlus Nord | |
| Motorola Moto G100 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 780G 5G () | |
| AImark - Score v2.x (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 780G 5G () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (1043 - 139804, n=50, last 2 years) | |
| Basemark GPU 1.2 | |
| 1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G100 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 780G 5G () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (7.65 - 13860, n=54, last 2 years) | |
| OpenGL Medium Native (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G100 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 780G 5G () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (9.3 - 9309, n=53, last 2 years) | |
| 1280x720 Vulkan Simple Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G100 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 780G 5G () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2.12 - 39496, n=56, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G100 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 780G 5G () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (7.51 - 15712, n=55, last 2 years) | |
| Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G100 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 780G 5G () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (10 - 14706, n=54, last 2 years) | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 351, n=172, last 2 years) | |
| Motorola Moto G100 (Chrome 90) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G (Chrome90) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 780G 5G () | |
| OnePlus Nord (Chrome 84) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G (Chrome 89) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G (Chrome83) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Motorola Moto G100 (Chrome 90) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G (Chrome90) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 780G 5G () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years) | |
| OnePlus Nord (Chrome 84) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G (Chrome 89) | |
| Oppo Find X3 Lite (Chrome 88.0.4324.181) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (14.9 - 445, n=157, last 2 years) | |
| Motorola Moto G100 (Chome 90) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G (Chrome90) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 780G 5G () | |
| OnePlus Nord (Chome 84) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G (Chrome83) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G (Chrome 89) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Motorola Moto G100 (Chrome 90) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (39 - 304, n=122, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G (Chrome90) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 780G 5G () | |
| OnePlus Nord (Chrome 84) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G (Chrome 89) | |
| Oppo Find X3 Lite (Chrome 88.0.4324.181) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G (Chrome83) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Motorola Moto G100 (Chrome 90) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 89112, n=210, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G (Chrome90) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 780G 5G () | |
| OnePlus Nord (Chrome 84) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G (Chrome83) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G (Chrome 89) | |
| Oppo Find X3 Lite (Chrome 88.0.4324.181) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Oppo Find X3 Lite (Chrome 88.0.4324.181) | |
| OnePlus Nord (Chrome 84) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G (Chrome83) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G (Chrome 89) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G (Chrome90) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 780G 5G () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (388 - 9999, n=172, last 2 years) | |
| Motorola Moto G100 (Chrome 90) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G | Samsung Galaxy A52 5G | Oppo Find X3 Lite | OnePlus Nord | Motorola Moto G100 | Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G | Average 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -16% | -15% | -30% | 32% | -22% | -19% | 42% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 949 | 927 -2% | 953 0% | 956 1% | 1730 82% | 980 3% | 708 ? -25% | 1505 ? 59% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 710 | 484.6 -32% | 466.2 -34% | 473.1 -33% | 717 1% | 476.9 -33% | 517 ? -27% | 1112 ? 57% |
| Random Read 4KB | 207.9 | 176.1 -15% | 194.7 -6% | 126.7 -39% | 253.6 22% | 156.4 -25% | 188 ? -10% | 247 ? 19% |
| Random Write 4KB | 206.9 | 179.2 -13% | 166 -20% | 104.5 -49% | 252.9 22% | 138.5 -33% | 182.5 ? -12% | 271 ? 31% |
| 3DMark - Wild Life Stress Test Stability | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G | |
| Oppo Find X3 Lite | |
| Motorola Moto G100 | |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 39.1 °C / 102 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 39 °C / 102 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 31.3 °C / 88 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (89.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.3% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 24% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 68% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 45% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 48% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (89 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 6.2% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 20% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 72% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 41% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 51% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| Av/Standby |   0.01 / 0.16 Watt |
| Låg belastning |  0.83 / 1.92 / 1.97 Watt |
| Hög belastning |
3.84 / 8.6 Watt |
    
| |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G 4250 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A52 5G 4500 mAh | Oppo Find X3 Lite 4300 mAh | OnePlus Nord 4115 mAh | Motorola Moto G100 5000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G 4160 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 780G 5G | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 6% | 6% | -18% | -13% | -28% | 0% | -2% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.83 | 0.92 -11% | 0.92 -11% | 1.8 -117% | 0.9 -8% | 1.5 -81% | 0.83 ? -0% | 0.897 ? -8% |
| Idle Average * | 1.92 | 1.78 7% | 1.97 -3% | 2.1 -9% | 1.5 22% | 2.2 -15% | 1.92 ? -0% | 1.452 ? 24% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.97 | 1.81 8% | 1.98 -1% | 2.3 -17% | 2.1 -7% | 2.9 -47% | 1.97 ? -0% | 1.629 ? 17% |
| Load Average * | 3.84 | 3.86 -1% | 3.33 13% | 3.4 11% | 6.7 -74% | 4.4 -15% | 3.84 ? -0% | 5.55 ? -45% |
| Load Maximum * | 8.6 | 6.14 29% | 5.77 33% | 5.2 40% | 8.5 1% | 7.2 16% | 8.6 ? -0% | 8.31 ? 3% |
* ... smaller is better
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G 4250 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A52 5G 4500 mAh | Oppo Find X3 Lite 4300 mAh | OnePlus Nord 4115 mAh | Motorola Moto G100 5000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 10 Lite 5G 4160 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 13% | 14% | 13% | 43% | 36% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1509 | 1917 27% | 2003 33% | 2846 89% | 1683 12% | |
| H.264 | 1248 | 1052 -16% | 1064 -15% | 1285 3% | 1403 12% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 734 | 710 -3% | 834 14% | 869 18% | 1049 43% | 884 20% |
| Load | 223 | 324 45% | 261 17% | 302 35% | 448 101% |
För
Emot
Omdöme - Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G
Läs den fullständiga versionen av den här recensionen på engelska här.
Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G är en väldigt tunn och lätt mittenskiktstelefon. Huruvida detta är något bra går att debattera. Den tunna konstruktionen och den låga vikten kommer på bekostnad av batteritid, men gör också att Xiaomis telefon står ut från mängden.
Totalt sett ger Xiaomi Mi 11 en lite bättre upplevelse. Men vid vardagsbruk kommer de flesta inte ens notera att Mi 11 har en lite snabbare SoC eller en lite bättre skärm. Mi 11 Lite 5G är så kraftfull att den kan hantera de flesta uppgifterna nästan lika snabbt som Mi 11. Vidare känns OLED-skärmen med 90 Hz bilduppdatering väldigt responsiv, och skärmen är ungefär lika ljusstark som på Mi 11.
Mi 11 Lite har väldigt kraftfull hårdvara och är riktigt tunn – många intresserade köpare lär finna blandningen av kraft och tunn konstruktion lockande.
Mi 11 Lite 5G är inte en perfekt mittenskiktstelefon. Den saknar många funktioner – exempelvis trådlös laddning, sann Always on Display-funktionalitet, hög IP-certifiering samt optisk bildstabilisering – som andra mittenskiktstelefoner har. Som exempel kunde kameran på Mi 11 Lite 5G ha varit mycket bättre om den hade haft stöd för optisk bildstabilisering.
Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G
-
08/31/2022 v7
Marcus Herbrich
Pricecompare
