Test: Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra - Kommer både med S Pen och kraftfulla funktioner (Sammanfattning)
Testgrupp
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
89.6 % v7 (old) | 09/2020 | Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra Exynos 990, Mali-G77 MP11 | 208 g | 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.90" | 3088x1440 | |
87.5 % v7 (old) | 09/2019 | Samsung Galaxy Note10+ Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12 | 196 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.80" | 3040x1440 | |
89 % v7 (old) | 12/2019 | Huawei Mate 30 Pro Kirin 990, Mali-G76 MP16 | 198 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.53" | 2400x1176 | |
88.2 % v7 (old) | 04/2020 | Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro SD 865, Adreno 650 | 208 g | 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2340x1080 | |
87.1 % v7 (old) | 10/2019 | Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max A13 Bionic, A13 Bionic GPU | 226 g | 64 GB SSD | 6.50" | 2688x1242 |
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
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-LightZoomUltraweitwinkel
|
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 96 %
Mitt på batteriet: 860 cd/m²
Kontrast: ∞:1 (Svärta: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.5 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 2.4 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
96.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra Dynamic AMOLED, 3088x1440, 6.9" | Samsung Galaxy Note10+ Dynamic AMOLED, 3040x1440, 6.8" | Huawei Mate 30 Pro OLED, 2400x1176, 6.5" | Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.7" | Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max OLED, 2688x1242, 6.5" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | 9% | 4% | 30% | 23% | |
Brightness middle | 860 | 683 -21% | 592 -31% | 753 -12% | 790 -8% |
Brightness | 878 | 694 -21% | 605 -31% | 762 -13% | 790 -10% |
Brightness Distribution | 96 | 96 0% | 96 0% | 96 0% | 97 1% |
Black Level * | |||||
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.5 | 2.9 36% | 2.5 44% | 0.9 80% | 1.4 69% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 10.4 | 4.8 54% | 5.5 47% | 1.6 85% | 3.4 67% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.4 | 2.2 8% | 2.6 -8% | 1.5 37% | 1.9 21% |
Gamma | 2 110% | 2.11 104% | 2.16 102% | 2.24 98% | 2.23 99% |
CCT | 6466 101% | 6247 104% | 6173 105% | 6415 101% | 6466 101% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 245.1 Hz | ≤ 99 % brightness setting | |
The display backlight flickers at 245.1 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 99 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 245.1 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 8743 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) 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. » 11 % 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 | ||
8.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 4.4 ms rise | |
↘ 4.4 ms fall | ||
The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 18 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). |
PCMark for Android | |
Work performance score (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10+ | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (13627 - 14760, n=5) | |
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10+ | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (10008 - 11784, n=5) |
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro | |
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (296746 - 527820, n=5) |
Basemark GPU 1.1 | |
1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10+ | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (71.4 - 71.6, n=2) | |
Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10+ | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (42.3 - 63, n=2) | |
1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10+ | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (84.1 - 85.6, n=2) |
VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10+ | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (4607 - 4957, n=3) | |
Average of class Smartphone (2523 - 10071, n=6, last 2 years) |
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=161, last 2 years) | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra (Chrome 84) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (50.6 - 56.8, n=5) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10+ (Samung Browser 9.2) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra (Chrome 84) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (89.3 - 96.2, n=5) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10+ (Samsung Browser 9.2) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=146, last 2 years) | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (50.8 - 64.4, n=4) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10+ (Samsung Browser 9.2) |
WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10+ (Samsung Browser 9.2) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra (Chrome 84) | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (86 - 102, n=5) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1) | |
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=203, last 2 years) | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra (Chrome 84) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10+ (Samsung Browser 9.2) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (18094 - 20022, n=5) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10+ (Samsung Browser 9.2) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 990 (2294 - 2511, n=5) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra (Chrome 84) | |
Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro (Chrome 81) | |
Huawei Mate 30 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=160, last 2 years) | |
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max (Safari Mobile 13.1) |
* ... smaller is better
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra | Samsung Galaxy Note10+ | Huawei Mate 30 Pro | Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro | Average 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | -7% | 7% | 13% | 28% | 43% | |
Sequential Read 256KB | 1782 | 1504 -16% | 1781 0% | 1739 -2% | 1749 ? -2% | 1839 ? 3% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 802 | 588 -27% | 401.8 -50% | 750 -6% | 1163 ? 45% | 1425 ? 78% |
Random Read 4KB | 186.7 | 196.2 5% | 226.4 21% | 264.9 42% | 286 ? 53% | 277 ? 48% |
Random Write 4KB | 217.7 | 183.6 -16% | 259.2 19% | 258.5 19% | 319 ? 47% | 309 ? 42% |
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 65.6 ? | 71 ? 8% | 82.5 ? 26% | 75.9 ? 16% | ||
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 55.6 ? | 59.5 ? 7% | 69.2 ? 24% | 61.9 ? 11% |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 33.8 °C / 93 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 31.1 °C / 88 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 25.7 °C / 78 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.1% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (1.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (14.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 1% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 97% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 17% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 79% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 15.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.7% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.8% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 23% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 69% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 44% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 49% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Av/Standby | 0.01 / 0.24 Watt |
Låg belastning | 0.65 / 1.06 / 1.49 Watt |
Hög belastning |
4.91 / 10.29 Watt |
Förklaring:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 4500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy Note10+ 4300 mAh | Huawei Mate 30 Pro 4500 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro 4500 mAh | Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max 3969 mAh | Average Samsung Exynos 990 | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | -31% | -13% | 9% | -49% | -22% | -22% | |
Idle Minimum * | 0.65 | 0.7 -8% | 0.87 -34% | 0.61 6% | 0.92 -42% | 0.846 ? -30% | 0.894 ? -38% |
Idle Average * | 1.06 | 1.81 -71% | 1.75 -65% | 1.19 -12% | 2.9 -174% | 1.534 ? -45% | 1.456 ? -37% |
Idle Maximum * | 1.49 | 1.92 -29% | 1.83 -23% | 1.23 17% | 2.94 -97% | 1.858 ? -25% | 1.616 ? -8% |
Load Average * | 4.91 | 7.57 -54% | 3.85 22% | 4.18 15% | 3.65 26% | 5.14 ? -5% | 6.45 ? -31% |
Load Maximum * | 10.29 | 9.34 9% | 6.64 35% | 8.53 17% | 6.18 40% | 10.7 ? -4% | 9.8 ? 5% |
* ... smaller is better
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 4500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy Note10+ 4300 mAh | Huawei Mate 30 Pro 4500 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 10 Pro 4500 mAh | Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max 3969 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | -1% | 21% | 16% | 53% | |
Reader / Idle | 1223 | 1585 30% | 2174 78% | 2133 74% | 2618 114% |
H.264 | 993 | 934 -6% | 1098 11% | 973 -2% | 1346 36% |
WiFi v1.3 | 644 | 532 -17% | 823 28% | 865 34% | 909 41% |
Load | 338 | 305 -10% | 219 -35% | 198 -41% | 408 21% |
För
Emot
Omdöme - Ett svårt val
Läs den fullständiga versionen av den här recensionen på engelska här.
Vid skrivande stund är Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra en av de bästa smarta telefonerna som går att få tag på. Den utmärker sig i vårt test med en riktigt ljusstark AMOLED-skärm, ett snabbt system, en bra och mångsidig kamera, behagliga högtalare samt en tjusig design. Dessutom har vi S Pen, en väldigt mogen produkt med många utmärkta funktioner.
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra är ett riktigt komplett paket och tre års utlovade uppdateringar garanterar ett långt liv.
Det är bara om man tittar närmare på detaljerna som några mindre irritationsmoment uppenbarar sig. Dessa inkluderar först och främst dilemmat med de olika chippen, vilket lämnar en dålig smak i munnen. Inte nog med att prestandan är sämre med en Exynos SoC; den är dessutom mindre energieffektiv och 5G-funktionaliteten får brottas med att den saknar stöd för mmWave. Skärmen kunde också varit bättre kalibrerad; även om detta knappt går att märka med blotta ögat hindrar det skärmen från att få ett bättre betyg. Vidare hade vi väntat oss att skärmens 120 Hz-läge skulle fungera även i QHD+ upplösning på en såpass lyxig produkt.
Gillar man Note finns det egentligen ingen väg runt Galaxy Note20 Ultra, men det finns inte mycket anledning att byta från förra årets modell för en del saker har Samsung inte förbättrat överhuvudtaget. Har man inget problem med det höga priset får man dock en utmärkt smartphone.
Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra
- 08/31/2022 v7 (old)
Daniel Schmidt