Test: Huawei P Smart 2020 - Bekväm och förlegad (Sammanfattning)
Testgrupp
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
76.6 % v7 (old) | 06/2020 | Huawei P Smart 2020 Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4 | 163 g | 128 GB eMMC Flash | 6.21" | 2340x1080 | |
75.7 % v7 (old) | 05/2020 | Nokia 5.3 SD 665, Adreno 610 | 185 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.55" | 1600x720 | |
80.7 % v7 (old) | 05/2020 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S SD 720G, Adreno 618 | 209 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
76.6 % v7 (old) | 05/2020 | Motorola Moto G8 SD 665, Adreno 610 | 188 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.40" | 1560x720 | |
84.9 % v6 (old) | 01/2019 | Huawei P Smart 2019 Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4 | 160 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.20" | 2340x1080 |
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
Storleksjämförelse
Networking | |
iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
Huawei P Smart 2019 | |
Huawei P Smart 2020 | |
Nokia 5.3 | |
Motorola Moto G8 | |
iperf3 receive AX12 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
Huawei P Smart 2020 | |
Huawei P Smart 2019 | |
Nokia 5.3 | |
Motorola Moto G8 |
|
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 87 %
Mitt på batteriet: 446 cd/m²
Kontrast: 875:1 (Svärta: 0.51 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.22 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 6.8 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
99.5% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.43
Huawei P Smart 2020 IPS, 2340x1080, 6.2" | Nokia 5.3 IPS, 1600x720, 6.6" | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S IPS, 2400x1080, 6.7" | Motorola Moto G8 IPS, 1560x720, 6.4" | Huawei P Smart 2019 IPS, 2340x1080, 6.2" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | 1% | 22% | 35% | 34% | |
Brightness middle | 446 | 523 17% | 622 39% | 504 13% | 458 3% |
Brightness | 448 | 482 8% | 612 37% | 452 1% | 440 -2% |
Brightness Distribution | 87 | 86 -1% | 94 8% | 83 -5% | 85 -2% |
Black Level * | 0.51 | 0.46 10% | 0.56 -10% | 0.28 45% | 0.35 31% |
Contrast | 875 | 1137 30% | 1111 27% | 1800 106% | 1309 50% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 5.22 | 6.22 -19% | 3.98 24% | 3.84 26% | 1.4 73% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 8.66 | 10.56 -22% | 7.33 15% | 6.1 30% | 3.8 56% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 6.8 | 8 -18% | 4.5 34% | 2.7 60% | 2.4 65% |
Gamma | 2.43 91% | 2.226 99% | 2.206 100% | 2.235 98% | 2.22 99% |
CCT | 7956 82% | 8856 73% | 7361 88% | 7125 91% | 6235 104% |
Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 114.9 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 344 Hz | ≤ 10 % brightness setting | |
The display backlight flickers at 344 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 10 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 344 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 8746 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. |
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
26 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 15 ms rise | |
↘ 11 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. » 59 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (21 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
42 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 25 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 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 64 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). |
VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value) | |
Huawei P Smart 2020 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (961 - 1146, n=3) | |
Average of class Smartphone (2523 - 10071, n=6, last 2 years) |
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=161, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (30 - 33, n=8) | |
Huawei P Smart 2020 (Chrome 81) | |
Motorola Moto G8 (Chrome 81) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
Huawei P Smart 2020 (Chrome 81) | |
Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (47 - 55.1, n=10) | |
Huawei P Smart 2019 (Chrome 70) | |
Motorola Moto G8 (Chrome 81) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=146, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chome 81) | |
Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (30.4 - 33.9, n=6) | |
Huawei P Smart 2020 (Chome 81) | |
Motorola Moto G8 (Chome 81) |
WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
Huawei P Smart 2019 (Chrome 70) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
Huawei P Smart 2020 (Chrome 81) | |
Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (52 - 69, n=11) | |
Motorola Moto G8 (Chrome 81) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=203, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
Huawei P Smart 2019 (Chrome 70) | |
Huawei P Smart 2020 (Chrome 81) | |
Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (9041 - 10544, n=13) | |
Motorola Moto G8 (Chrome 81) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
Motorola Moto G8 (Chrome 81) | |
Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (3999 - 4853, n=13) | |
Huawei P Smart 2020 (Chrome 81) | |
Huawei P Smart 2019 (Chrome 70) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=160, last 2 years) |
* ... smaller is better
Huawei P Smart 2020 | Nokia 5.3 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | Motorola Moto G8 | Huawei P Smart 2019 | Average 128 GB eMMC Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | 31% | 70% | 27% | 7% | 17% | 569% | |
Sequential Read 256KB | 282.1 | 299.5 6% | 496.6 76% | 301 7% | 288.3 2% | 283 ? 0% | 1839 ? 552% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 168.3 | 243.2 45% | 214.8 28% | 239 42% | 191.4 14% | 194.6 ? 16% | 1425 ? 747% |
Random Read 4KB | 41.2 | 109.1 165% | 137 233% | 57.3 39% | 45.66 11% | 82.7 ? 101% | 277 ? 572% |
Random Write 4KB | 61.1 | 45.2 -26% | 123.6 102% | 128.1 110% | 70.7 16% | 55.1 ? -10% | 309 ? 406% |
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 76.1 ? | 77.3 ? 2% | 74.5 ? -2% | 68.7 ? -10% | 76.2 ? 0% | 78.1 ? 3% | |
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 67 ? | 60.7 ? -9% | 54.9 ? -18% | 48.7 ? -27% | 66.9 ? 0% | 61.8 ? -8% |
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 44.3 °C / 112 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 63.2 °C for the class Smartphone.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 45.3 °C / 114 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.5 °C / 83 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Huawei P Smart 2020 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (74.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.9% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (27.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 69% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 26% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 82% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 14% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 64.7% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 64.7% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 64.7% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (119.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 87% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 3% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 96% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Av/Standby | 0 / 0.1 Watt |
Låg belastning | 1 / 2.1 / 2.5 Watt |
Hög belastning |
4.3 / 7.5 Watt |
Förklaring:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Huawei P Smart 2020 3400 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S 5020 mAh | Motorola Moto G8 4000 mAh | Huawei P Smart 2019 3400 mAh | Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | -14% | -5% | 4% | -4% | -1% | |
Idle Minimum * | 1 | 1.5 -50% | 1.3 -30% | 0.84 16% | 1.058 ? -6% | 0.894 ? 11% |
Idle Average * | 2.1 | 2.1 -0% | 2 5% | 2.21 -5% | 2.2 ? -5% | 1.456 ? 31% |
Idle Maximum * | 2.5 | 2.5 -0% | 2.8 -12% | 2.23 11% | 2.57 ? -3% | 1.616 ? 35% |
Load Average * | 4.3 | 5.2 -21% | 3.9 9% | 4.2 2% | 4.61 ? -7% | 6.45 ? -50% |
Load Maximum * | 7.5 | 7.5 -0% | 7.2 4% | 7.86 -5% | 7.6 ? -1% | 9.8 ? -31% |
* ... smaller is better
Huawei P Smart 2020 3400 mAh | Nokia 5.3 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S 5020 mAh | Motorola Moto G8 4000 mAh | Huawei P Smart 2019 3400 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | 67% | 91% | 64% | -3% | |
Reader / Idle | 1325 | 2263 71% | 1953 47% | 1293 -2% | |
H.264 | 489 | 1269 160% | 1048 114% | 464 -5% | |
WiFi v1.3 | 523 | 876 67% | 1187 127% | 988 89% | 506 -3% |
Load | 264 | 279 6% | 276 5% | 257 -3% |
För
Emot
Omdöme - En liten uppdatering med ett stort prispåslag
Läs den fullständiga versionen av den här recensionen på engelska här.
Huaweis P-serie är populär. Det är lätt att förstå, för fram tills nu har serien erbjudit mycket för pengarna. Detta gör också att P Smart 2020 känns ganska modern, trots att bara ett fåtal förändringar har gjorts jämfört med föregångaren.
Men åldern börjar ta ut sin rätt här och var: Även om kameran fortfarande tar bra bilder saknar den zoom-förmåga, vilket många andra enheter på den här prisnivån har. Du letar också förgäves om du vill ha moderna funktioner som en USB C-port, VoLTE eller snabbare LTE med stöd för fler frekvensband. Att släppa en smartphone med Android 9 under 2020 utan att det är tydligt att den nån gång kommer få Android 10 känns också tveksamt.
Ett litet batteri visar sig vara både en välsignelse och en förbannelse, beroende på användaren. Man kommer inte undan att ladda telefonen dagligen, om man inte använder den väldigt sparsamt. Men å andra sidan laddar det lilla batteriet snabbt och ger telefonen en ganska låg vikt.
Gillar man tunna och lätta telefoner kan vi fortfarande rekommendera Huawei P Smart 2020. Men värdesätter man lång batteritid och modern mjukvara är det bättre att leta någon annanstans.
Positioneringen är skapligt exakt, den har ganska snabbt WLAN, prestandan är på rätt nivå och 128 GB lagring är ytterligare ett plus för denna smartphone.
Men Huawei P Smart 2020 har ytterligare ett problem. Problemet heter P Smart 2019 och är i princip samma telefonen med lite mindre lagring till ett mycket lägre pris. Så vill du spara pengar kan du istället köpa föregångaren. Även om efterflöjaren är en gedigen och billig mittenskiktstelefon känns den inte längre lika aktuell som andra modeller från den här prisskiktet.
Huawei P Smart 2020
- 05/30/2020 v7 (old)
Florian Schmitt