Test: Apple iPhone XR Smartphone (Sammanfattning)
Topp 10...
» Topp 10: Bästa bärbara allround/multimediadatorerna
» Topp 10: Bästa bärbara speldatorerna
» Topp 10: Bärbara budget/kontorsdatorer
» Topp 10: Bästa bärbara kontors/premiumdatorerna
» Topp 10: Bärbara arbetsstationer
» Topp 10: De bästa små/kompakta bärbara datorerna
» Topp 10: Bästa ultrabooks
» Topp 10: Bästa hybriddatorerna
» Topp 10: Bästa surfplattorna
» Topp 10: Marknadens bästa smartphones
|
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 92 %
Mitt på batteriet: 672 cd/m²
Kontrast: 1920:1 (Svärta: 0.35 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.3 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 2.2 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
100% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.3
Apple iPhone XR IPS, 1792x828, 6.1" | Samsung Galaxy S9 Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 5.8" | Xiaomi Poco F1 IPS, 2246x1080, 6.2" | Huawei Mate 20 Pro OLED, 3120x1440, 6.3" | Apple iPhone XS OLED, 2436x1125, 5.8" | Apple iPhone 8 Plus IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | -11% | -66% | -5% | 6% | -6% | |
Brightness middle | 672 | 529 -21% | 489 -27% | 576 -14% | 639 -5% | 559 -17% |
Brightness | 641 | 527 -18% | 486 -24% | 582 -9% | 637 -1% | 538 -16% |
Brightness Distribution | 92 | 96 4% | 93 1% | 90 -2% | 94 2% | 90 -2% |
Black Level * | 0.35 | 0.34 3% | 0.38 -9% | |||
Contrast | 1920 | 1438 -25% | 1471 -23% | |||
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.3 | 1.4 -8% | 3.8 -192% | 1.3 -0% | 1 23% | 1.3 -0% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 2.7 | 4 -48% | 7.1 -163% | 3.5 -30% | 2.2 19% | 2.7 -0% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.2 | 1.6 27% | 4.4 -100% | 1.6 27% | 2.2 -0% | 1.8 18% |
Gamma | 2.3 96% | 2.16 102% | 2.22 99% | 2.18 101% | 1.9 116% | 2.25 98% |
CCT | 6868 95% | 6358 102% | 7213 90% | 6561 99% | 6364 102% | 6797 96% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM not detected | |||
In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8705 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. |
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
20 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 6.8 ms rise | |
↘ 13.2 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 40 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
45.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 21.2 ms rise | |
↘ 24.4 ms fall | ||
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 76 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). |
PCMark for Android | |
Work performance score (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Xiaomi Poco F1 | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro | |
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Xiaomi Poco F1 | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro |
Basemark GPU 1.1 | |
1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Poco F1 | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro | |
Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Poco F1 | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro | |
1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Poco F1 | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro |
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
Apple iPhone XS | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Xiaomi Poco F1 | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro | |
Average Apple A12 Bionic (302955 - 370545, n=4) |
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
Apple iPhone 8 Plus | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Xiaomi Poco F1 | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro |
VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Poco F1 | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro | |
Average of class Smartphone (2523 - 10071, n=6, last 2 years) |
Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sort by value) | |
Apple iPhone XR | |
Apple iPhone XS | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro | |
Average Apple A12 Bionic (2407 - 2873, n=6) | |
Average of class Smartphone (205 - 7616, n=57, last 2 years) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Apple iPhone XS (Safari Mobile 12.0) | |
Average Apple A12 Bionic (267 - 273, n=4) | |
Apple iPhone XR (Safari Mobile 12.0) | |
Apple iPhone 8 Plus | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69) | |
Xiaomi Poco F1 (Chrome 68) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Apple iPhone XS (Safari Mobile 12.0) | |
Apple iPhone XR (Safari Mobile 12.0) | |
Average Apple A12 Bionic (41367 - 43280, n=6) | |
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=210, last 2 years) | |
Apple iPhone 8 Plus | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
Xiaomi Poco F1 (Chrome 68) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
Xiaomi Poco F1 (Chrome 68) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69) | |
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=167, last 2 years) | |
Apple iPhone 8 Plus | |
Average Apple A12 Bionic (603 - 653, n=6) | |
Apple iPhone XR (Safari Mobile 12.0) | |
Apple iPhone XS (Safari Mobile 12.0) |
WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
Apple iPhone XR (Safari Mobile 12.0) | |
Average Apple A12 Bionic (155 - 166, n=6) | |
Apple iPhone XS (Safari Mobile 12.0) | |
Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 |
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall | |
Apple iPhone 8 Plus | |
Apple iPhone XS (Safari Mobile 12.0) | |
Average Apple A12 Bionic (341 - 347, n=4) | |
Apple iPhone XR (Safari Mobile 12.0) | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69) | |
Xiaomi Poco F1 (Chrome 68) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0) |
* ... smaller is better
PUBG Mobile (HD)
World of Tanks Blitz (High)
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 38.2 °C / 101 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 63.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 40.3 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 30.9 °C / 88 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Apple iPhone XR audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 12.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.8% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 12.2% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 36% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 55% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 56% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 37% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Av/Standby | 0 / 0.09 Watt |
Låg belastning | 0.61 / 2.67 / 2.69 Watt |
Hög belastning |
4.34 / 5.66 Watt |
Förklaring:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Apple iPhone XR 2942 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S9 3000 mAh | Xiaomi Poco F1 4000 mAh | Huawei Mate 20 Pro 4200 mAh | Apple iPhone XS 2658 mAh | Apple iPhone 8 Plus 2691 mAh | Average Apple A12 Bionic | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | 26% | -3% | -7% | 11% | -10% | -61% | -17% | |
Idle Minimum * | 0.61 | 0.65 -7% | 0.65 -7% | 0.95 -56% | 0.95 -56% | 0.72 -18% | 1.36 ? -123% | 0.88 ? -44% |
Idle Average * | 2.67 | 0.81 70% | 1.97 26% | 2.17 19% | 1.34 50% | 2.45 8% | 3.41 ? -28% | 1.444 ? 46% |
Idle Maximum * | 2.69 | 0.92 66% | 2.01 25% | 2.25 16% | 1.48 45% | 2.52 6% | 4.05 ? -51% | 1.6 ? 41% |
Load Average * | 4.34 | 4.76 -10% | 4.29 1% | 4.47 -3% | 4 8% | 3.84 12% | 6.4 ? -47% | 6.57 ? -51% |
Load Maximum * | 5.66 | 5.16 9% | 9.05 -60% | 6.15 -9% | 5.13 9% | 9.02 -59% | 8.75 ? -55% | 9.91 ? -75% |
* ... smaller is better
Apple iPhone XR 2942 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S9 3000 mAh | Xiaomi Poco F1 4000 mAh | Huawei Mate 20 Pro 4200 mAh | Apple iPhone XS 2658 mAh | Apple iPhone 8 Plus 2691 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | -47% | -17% | -17% | -31% | -27% | |
Reader / Idle | 2969 | 1182 -60% | 2088 -30% | 1747 -41% | 1442 -51% | 2085 -30% |
H.264 | 1011 | 609 -40% | 936 -7% | 854 -16% | 745 -26% | 733 -27% |
WiFi v1.3 | 910 | 474 -48% | 808 -11% | 767 -16% | 570 -37% | 657 -28% |
Load | 270 | 164 -39% | 220 -19% | 282 4% | 245 -9% | 211 -22% |
För
Emot
Läs den fullständiga versionen av den här recensionen på engelska här.
Apples iPhone XR delar många komponenter med modellerna i den dyrare iPhone XS-serien, de har bland annat samma SoC, huvudkamera, Face ID-system, stöd för dubbla SIM-kort och trådlösa laddning. Apple har kompromissat på en del områden vilket inkluderar lägre IP-certifiering, ett sämre modem och en LCD-skärm med lägre upplösning. Huvudkameran saknar också XS-seriens optiska zoom och några dess porträttfunktioner.
iPhone XR är en billigare och färgrikare version av XS-serien. XR delar mycket av sin hårdvara med de dyrare syskonen utan att för prisets skull behöva kompromissa på nyckelområden.
Den lägre upplösta LCD-skärmen är i vårt tycke ett villospår. Den använder inte PWM för att justera skärmens ljusstyrka, vilket XS-serien gör; något som kan anstränga ögonen eller ge en del personer huvudvärk. Dessutom förbättrar den lägre upplösningen batteritiden rejält utan att bildkvaliteten behöver offras.
Prisskillnaden mellan XR och iPhone XS är gigantisk. Vi ser heller inga påtagliga nackdelar som hindrar oss från att rekommendera den framför de dyrare syskonen. En större storlek kan göra den mindre tilltalande än XS för somliga, men det är en fråga om smak. Totalt sett är iPhone XR mer prisvärd än både iPhone XS och XS Max.
Apple iPhone XR
- 09/27/2019 v7 (old)
Daniel Schmidt