Test: Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro – Utomhustelefon med utbytbart batteri (Sammanfattning)
Jämförelseenheter
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
78 % v7 (old) | 03/2020 | Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3 | 218 g | 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.30" | 2340x1080 | |
74 % v7 (old) | 08/2019 | Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2 | 172 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 5.00" | 1280x720 | |
77.2 % v7 (old) | 12/2019 | CAT S52 Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320 | 210 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 5.65" | 1440x720 | |
77 % v7 (old) | 01/2020 | Blackview BV9800 Pro Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3 | 322 g | 128 GB eMMC Flash | 6.30" | 2340x1080 | |
78 % v7 (old) | 02/2019 | Crosscall Trekker-X4 SD 660, Adreno 512 | 250 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 5.50" | 1920x1080 |
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 | |
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro | |
Blackview BV9800 Pro | |
Crosscall Trekker-X4 | |
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
CAT S52 | |
iperf3 receive AX12 | |
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro | |
Crosscall Trekker-X4 | |
Blackview BV9800 Pro | |
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
CAT S52 |
|
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 91 %
Mitt på batteriet: 569 cd/m²
Kontrast: 1355:1 (Svärta: 0.42 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.14 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 7.9 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
98.2% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.256
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro IPS, 2340x1080, 6.3" | Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s IPS (PLS), 1280x720, 5" | CAT S52 IPS, 1440x720, 5.7" | Blackview BV9800 Pro IPS, 2340x1080, 6.3" | Crosscall Trekker-X4 IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | -8% | 47% | -9% | -18% | |
Brightness middle | 569 | 525 -8% | 521 -8% | 511 -10% | 374 -34% |
Brightness | 562 | 513 -9% | 530 -6% | 508 -10% | 352 -37% |
Brightness Distribution | 91 | 90 -1% | 91 0% | 89 -2% | 86 -5% |
Black Level * | 0.42 | 0.52 -24% | 0.16 62% | 0.29 31% | 0.35 17% |
Contrast | 1355 | 1010 -25% | 3256 140% | 1762 30% | 1069 -21% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 6.14 | 6 2% | 2.69 56% | 8.1 -32% | 7.46 -21% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 10.92 | 10.9 -0% | 5.07 54% | 15.2 -39% | 13.27 -22% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 7.9 | 7.8 1% | 1.8 77% | 10.9 -38% | 9.8 -24% |
Gamma | 2.256 98% | 2.53 87% | 2.243 98% | 2.08 106% | 2.152 102% |
CCT | 8696 75% | 8605 76% | 6622 98% | 9859 66% | 10554 62% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 250 Hz | ≤ 30 % brightness setting | |
The display backlight flickers at 250 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 30 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 250 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 8710 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. |
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
20 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 7 ms rise | |
↘ 13 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 | ||
46 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 21 ms rise | |
↘ 25 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. » 77 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). |
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=169, last 2 years) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (27.5 - 30.6, n=7) | |
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chrome 80) | |
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s (Chrome 75) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Crosscall Trekker-X4 (Chrome 71) | |
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chrome 80) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (47.5 - 51.9, n=7) | |
Blackview BV9800 Pro (Chrome 79) | |
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s (Chrome 75) | |
CAT S52 (Chrome 79) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=152, last 2 years) | |
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chome 80) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (26.6 - 30.5, n=7) | |
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s |
WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (46 - 57, n=7) | |
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | |
Blackview BV9800 Pro (Chrome 79) | |
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chrome 80) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=210, last 2 years) | |
Crosscall Trekker-X4 (Chrome 71) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (7442 - 10687, n=7) | |
Blackview BV9800 Pro (Chrome 79) | |
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chrome 80) | |
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s (Chrome 75) | |
CAT S52 (Chrome 79) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
CAT S52 (Chrome 79) | |
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro (Chrome 80) | |
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s (Chrome 75) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9611 (4332 - 6212, n=7) | |
Blackview BV9800 Pro (Chrome 79) | |
Crosscall Trekker-X4 (Chrome 71) | |
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=167, last 2 years) |
* ... smaller is better
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro | Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s | CAT S52 | Blackview BV9800 Pro | Crosscall Trekker-X4 | Average 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | -35% | -21% | -22% | -24% | -3% | 339% | |
Sequential Read 256KB | 508 | 298.6 -41% | 286.2 -44% | 286.5 -44% | 272.4 -46% | 513 ? 1% | 1894 ? 273% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 181.1 | 85.4 -53% | 195.4 8% | 185.9 3% | 194.7 8% | 175.2 ? -3% | 1476 ? 715% |
Random Read 4KB | 108.6 | 59.6 -45% | 76.6 -29% | 86.7 -20% | 71.5 -34% | 117.1 ? 8% | 278 ? 156% |
Random Write 4KB | 100.5 | 10.38 -90% | 21.3 -79% | 20.74 -79% | 14.3 -86% | 81.1 ? -19% | 312 ? 210% |
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 72.4 ? | 79.6 ? 10% | 82.6 ? 14% | 77.2 ? 7% | 83.5 ? 15% | 73.4 ? 1% | |
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 59.4 ? | 64.3 ? 8% | 61.8 ? 4% | 61.1 ? 3% | 59.5 ? 0% | 55.4 ? -7% |
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 40.4 °C / 105 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 39.5 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.7 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 77% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 77% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 77% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (118% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 86% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 5% 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, 2% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
CAT S52 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 67.6% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 67.6% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 67.6% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (121.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 89% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 2% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 97% 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 | 0.1 / 0.3 Watt |
Låg belastning | 0.9 / 1.8 / 2.3 Watt |
Hög belastning |
5.4 / 6.9 Watt |
Förklaring:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro 4050 mAh | Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s 2800 mAh | CAT S52 3100 mAh | Blackview BV9800 Pro 6580 mAh | Crosscall Trekker-X4 4400 mAh | Average Samsung Exynos 9611 | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | 29% | 5% | 4% | 16% | -21% | -3% | |
Idle Minimum * | 0.9 | 0.65 28% | 1 -11% | 0.87 3% | 0.7 22% | 1.173 ? -30% | 0.883 ? 2% |
Idle Average * | 1.8 | 1.62 10% | 1.9 -6% | 1.91 -6% | 1.4 22% | 2.28 ? -27% | 1.467 ? 18% |
Idle Maximum * | 2.3 | 1.66 28% | 2.7 -17% | 2.03 12% | 2.2 4% | 2.86 ? -24% | 1.621 ? 30% |
Load Average * | 5.4 | 3.03 44% | 3.6 33% | 4.4 19% | 4.1 24% | 5.97 ? -11% | 6.58 ? -22% |
Load Maximum * | 6.9 | 4.34 37% | 5.2 25% | 7.49 -9% | 6.4 7% | 7.83 ? -13% | 9.91 ? -44% |
* ... smaller is better
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro 4050 mAh | Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s 2800 mAh | CAT S52 3100 mAh | Blackview BV9800 Pro 6580 mAh | Crosscall Trekker-X4 4400 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | -18% | -13% | 104% | 15% | |
Reader / Idle | 1259 | 1199 -5% | |||
H.264 | 802 | 598 -25% | |||
WiFi v1.3 | 731 | 619 -15% | 637 -13% | 1492 104% | 839 15% |
Load | 268 | 200 -25% |
För
Emot
Omdöme – Utomhustelefon med många styrkor
Läs den fullständiga versionen av den här recensionen på engelska här.
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro är en modern utomhustelefon. Detta gäller inte bara utsidan utan insidan innehåller också funktioner som man oftast inte hittar på andra robusta enheter: Den har en USB Typ C-port, snabb UFS 2.0-lagring och en fingeravtrycksläsare som praktiskt nog är inbyggd i hem-knappen.
XCover Pro är också tillräckligt robust för hårda miljöer och mjukvaran har ett modernt gränssnitt. Vi blev också glada av att se en del gammaldags kvaliteter göra en återkomst, som ett utbytbart batteri och en 3.5 mm ljudanslutning.
Med ett pris på ca 5.000 kronor kan den inte tävla mot traditionella smartphones i fråga om minneskonfiguration eller systemprestanda eftersom en del av budgeten gick till ökad hållbarhet. Galaxy XCover har också många viktiga företagsfunktioner som inställningsbara knappar, en nedtonad utsida och stöd för dockningsstationer. Detta gör den också till ett intressant alternativ för privatpersoner som ibland vill ta sig ut i grövre terräng, exempelvis vid träning.
Med ett utbytbart batteri är den moderna utomhustelefonen Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro ett framgångsrikt koncept.
Batteritiden kunde förvisso varit bättre och kvaliteten på högtalare och samtal är inte fantastisk. Men vi kan ändå rekommendera XCover Pro tack vare snabbt WiFi, bra GPS och skapliga kameror.
Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro
- 03/02/2020 v7 (old)
Florian Schmitt