Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Chinese
MagyarTest: Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Smartphone (Sammanfattning)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 96 %
Mitt på batteriet: 499 cd/m²
Kontrast: ∞:1 (Svärta: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.62 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 2.2 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
144.6% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.103
| Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.4" | Apple iPhone 8 Plus IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5" | HTC U12 Plus Super LCD 6, 2880x1440, 6" | Huawei Mate 10 Pro OLED, 2160x1080, 6" | OnePlus 6 Optic AMOLED, 2280x1080, 6.3" | LG G7 ThinQ IPS, 3120x1440, 6.1" | Samsung Galaxy Note 8 Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.3" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 30% | 23% | 29% | 10% | 4% | 14% | |
| Brightness middle | 499 | 559 12% | 395 -21% | 629 26% | 430 -14% | 974 95% | 530 6% |
| Brightness | 506 | 538 6% | 402 -21% | 636 26% | 437 -14% | 975 93% | 536 6% |
| Brightness Distribution | 96 | 90 -6% | 90 -6% | 94 -2% | 87 -9% | 96 0% | 93 -3% |
| Black Level * | 0.38 | 0.37 | 0.49 | ||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.62 | 1.3 72% | 1.6 65% | 1.7 63% | 2.3 50% | 5.4 -17% | 2.6 44% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 10.91 | 2.7 75% | 3.4 69% | 3.6 67% | 4.6 58% | 13.1 -20% | 5.1 53% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.2 | 1.8 18% | 1.1 50% | 2.4 -9% | 2.4 -9% | 5 -127% | 2.7 -23% |
| Gamma | 2.103 105% | 2.25 98% | 2.14 103% | 2.15 102% | 2.28 96% | 2.31 95% | 2.04 108% |
| CCT | 6115 106% | 6797 96% | 6536 99% | 6337 103% | 6160 106% | 7480 87% | 6206 105% |
| Contrast | 1471 | 1068 | 1988 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 227 Hz |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 227 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 227 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below. 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 3 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 3 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. » 15 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 10 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 5 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 5 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 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 20 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). | ||
| AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 9 | |
| HTC U12 Plus | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| LG G7 ThinQ | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (236552 - 250577, n=3) | |
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 9 | |
| HTC U12 Plus | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| LG G7 ThinQ | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (5736 - 6571, n=4) | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 9 | |
| HTC U12 Plus | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| LG G7 ThinQ | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (5184 - 5851, n=4) | |
| Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 9 | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| LG G7 ThinQ | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (1436 - 1481, n=3) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (205 - 7616, n=56, last 2 years) | |
| Basemark GPU 1.1 | |
| Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 9 | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| LG G7 ThinQ | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9810 () | |
| 1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 9 | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| LG G7 ThinQ | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9810 () | |
| 1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 9 | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| LG G7 ThinQ | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9810 () | |
| VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 9 | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
| OnePlus 6 | |
| LG G7 ThinQ | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9810 () | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2523 - 10071, n=6, last 2 years) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Apple iPhone 8 Plus | |
| LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66) | |
| OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66) | |
| HTC U12 Plus (Chrome 66) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (62.9 - 69.6, n=4) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 9 (Chrome 68) | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=203, last 2 years) | |
| Apple iPhone 8 Plus | |
| OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66) | |
| LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66) | |
| HTC U12 Plus (Chrome 66) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 9 (Chrome 68) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (12933 - 15233, n=4) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0) | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 9 (Chrome 68) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (2060 - 3189, n=4) | |
| LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66) | |
| OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66) | |
| HTC U12 Plus (Chrome 66) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=160, last 2 years) | |
| Apple iPhone 8 Plus | |
| WebXPRT 2015 - Overall | |
| Apple iPhone 8 Plus | |
| HTC U12 Plus (Chrome 66) | |
| OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66) | |
| LG G7 ThinQ (Chrome 66) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 9 (Chrome 68) | |
| Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (163 - 202, n=3) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Samsung Browser 6.0) | |
| Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy Note 9 | HTC U12 Plus | Huawei Mate 10 Pro | OnePlus 6 | LG G7 ThinQ | Samsung Galaxy Note 8 | Average 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 63% | 170% | -0% | -5% | -10% | 96% | 558% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 805 | 709 -12% | 732 -9% | 726 -10% | 695 -14% | 797 -1% | 760 ? -6% | 1839 ? 128% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 196 | 195.8 0% | 208.7 6% | 201.4 3% | 176.4 -10% | 205.9 5% | 297 ? 52% | 1425 ? 627% |
| Random Read 4KB | 134 | 118.1 -12% | 132.3 -1% | 137 2% | 110.5 -18% | 122.5 -9% | 152.9 ? 14% | 277 ? 107% |
| Random Write 4KB | 21 | 104.2 396% | 164.4 683% | 21.8 4% | 23.26 11% | 14.55 -31% | 131.6 ? 527% | 309 ? 1371% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 77 ? | 84.3 ? 9% | 84.7 ? 10% | 67.9 ? -12% | 76 ? -1% | |||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 66.7 ? | 63.6 ? -5% | 62.7 ? -6% | 59.3 ? -11% | 59.6 ? -11% |
| Asphalt 9: Legends | |||
| Inställningar | Värde | ||
| High Quality | 30 fps | ||
| Standard / low | 30 fps | ||
| PUBG Mobile | |||
| Inställningar | Värde | ||
| Smooth | 40 fps | ||
| HD | 40 fps | ||
| Arena of Valor | |||
| Inställningar | Värde | ||
| min | 60 fps | ||
| high HD | 60 fps | ||
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 45.9 °C / 115 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 47 °C / 117 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 33.6 °C / 92 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 audio analysis
(-) | not very loud speakers (71.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 15.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.9% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.6% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 4% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 92% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 23% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 72% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Apple iPhone 8 Plus audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 17.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 6% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 90% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 25% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 70% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| Samsung Galaxy Note 9 4000 mAh | Apple iPhone 8 Plus 2691 mAh | HTC U12 Plus 3500 mAh | Huawei Mate 10 Pro 4000 mAh | OnePlus 6 3300 mAh | LG G7 ThinQ 3000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy Note 8 3300 mAh | Average Samsung Exynos 9810 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 6% | -3% | 25% | 29% | 3% | 30% | 18% | 6% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.9 | 0.72 20% | 0.77 14% | 0.85 6% | 0.6 33% | 1.16 -29% | 0.73 19% | 0.783 ? 13% | 0.894 ? 1% |
| Idle Average * | 1.9 | 2.45 -29% | 2.18 -15% | 1.15 39% | 1 47% | 1.98 -4% | 1.44 24% | 1.315 ? 31% | 1.456 ? 23% |
| Idle Maximum * | 3.7 | 2.52 32% | 2.21 40% | 1.23 67% | 1.6 57% | 2.07 44% | 1.53 59% | 1.903 ? 49% | 1.616 ? 56% |
| Load Average * | 5.3 | 3.84 28% | 6.25 -18% | 4.12 22% | 4.3 19% | 4.51 15% | 4.56 14% | 5.76 ? -9% | 6.45 ? -22% |
| Load Maximum * | 7.6 | 9.02 -19% | 10.16 -34% | 8.42 -11% | 8.6 -13% | 8.3 -9% | 5.09 33% | 7.06 ? 7% | 9.8 ? -29% |
* ... smaller is better
| Samsung Galaxy Note 9 4000 mAh | Apple iPhone 8 Plus 2691 mAh | HTC U12 Plus 3500 mAh | Huawei Mate 10 Pro 4000 mAh | OnePlus 6 3300 mAh | LG G7 ThinQ 3000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy Note 8 3300 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -13% | -33% | 6% | -10% | -13% | -33% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1687 | 2085 24% | 1452 -14% | 1744 3% | 1806 7% | 1662 -1% | 1134 -33% |
| H.264 | 896 | 733 -18% | 464 -48% | 929 4% | 791 -12% | 908 1% | 662 -26% |
| WiFi v1.3 | 794 | 657 -17% | 507 -36% | 818 3% | 762 -4% | 591 -26% | 474 -40% |
| Load | 354 | 211 -40% | 230 -35% | 398 12% | 246 -31% | 260 -27% | 246 -31% |
Läs den fullständiga versionen av den här recensionen på engelska här.
Samsung levererar återigen årets företagstelefon, något annat hade vi inte förväntat oss. Till och med dem som äger en Note 8 har mycket att tjäna på att byta till Note 9. Men detta har inte särskilt mycket med S Pen att göra: Den nya fjärrkontrollsfunktionen är trevlig, men inte revolutionerande. Vad som däremot är viktigt är att Galaxy Note 9 har ett mycket större batteri än sin föregångare, som håller i flera dagar på en enda laddning.
Det finns också nackdelar som att den stryps vid ihållande belastning och att den kommer med förinstallerad bloatware. Den som vill använda enheten utan ett skyddsfodral kommer ofta få sin telefon helt täckt av fingeravtryck.
Men utöver det är det inte mycket som har ändrats jämfört med föregångaren: Kameran har några nya funktioner, det finns en specialversion med extremt mycket lagringsutrymme och skärmen är en aning större. Och på tal om skärmen: Även om färgåtergivningen inte är optimal direkt efter uppackning så kan färgprecisionen förbättras betydligt genom manuell kalibrering. Dessutom täcker skärmen färgrymderna sRGB och DCI-P3 helt och hållet och till viss del även AdobeRGB. Totalt sett är Note 9 en dröm som blivit sann för den som behöver en skärm med exakta färger.
Med Galaxy Note 9 levererar Samsung återigen en utmärkt företags-phablet – den här gången med ett stort batteri.
Hur som helst, vad skulle kunna förbättras på såpass utmärkt smartphone: Höljet är fortfarande extremt robust, den har snabbt LTE, det finns många sätt att låsa upp enheten och så finns förstås S Pen, som för tillfället inte har några rivaler på marknaden.
Price comparison
