Test: Sony Xperia L4 - Smartphone från 2020 med Android från 2018 (Sammanfattning)
Testgrupp
Bewertung | Rating Version | Datum | Modell | Gewicht | Laufwerk | Groesse | Aufloesung | Preis ab |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 75.1 % v7 (old) | v7 (old) | 10/2020 | Sony Xperia L4 Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320 | 178 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.20" | 1680x720 | |
| 78.2 % v7 (old) | v7 (old) | 06/2020 | Realme 6i Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2 | 199 g | 128 GB eMMC Flash | 6.50" | 1600x720 | |
| 80.7 % v7 (old) | 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) | v7 (old) | 05/2020 | Motorola Moto G8 SD 665, Adreno 610 | 188 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.40" | 1560x720 |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Sony Xperia L4 | |
| Realme 6i | |
| Motorola Moto G8 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Sony Xperia L4 | |
| Motorola Moto G8 | |
| Realme 6i | |
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.
Hauptobjektiv BlumeHauptobjektiv UmgebungHauptobjektiv Low LightUltraweitwinkel
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 92 %
Mitt på batteriet: 429 cd/m²
Kontrast: 1650:1 (Svärta: 0.26 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.14 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 6.6 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
93% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.23
| Sony Xperia L4 IPS, 1680x720, 6.2" | Realme 6i IPS, 1600x720, 6.5" | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S IPS, 2400x1080, 6.7" | Motorola Moto G8 IPS, 1560x720, 6.4" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response Times | 25% | 27% | 188% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 58 ? | 50.4 ? 13% | 44 ? 24% | 46 ? 21% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 34 ? | 21.6 ? 36% | 24 ? 29% | 28 ? 18% |
| PWM Frequency | 100 ? | 625 525% | ||
| Screen | 6% | 6% | 20% | |
| Brightness middle | 429 | 518 21% | 622 45% | 504 17% |
| Brightness | 404 | 484 20% | 612 51% | 452 12% |
| Brightness Distribution | 92 | 89 -3% | 94 2% | 83 -10% |
| Black Level * | 0.26 | 0.26 -0% | 0.56 -115% | 0.28 -8% |
| Contrast | 1650 | 1992 21% | 1111 -33% | 1800 9% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 6.14 | 5.8 6% | 3.98 35% | 3.84 37% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 10.51 | 11 -5% | 7.33 30% | 6.1 42% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 6.6 | 7.3 -11% | 4.5 32% | 2.7 59% |
| Gamma | 2.23 99% | 2.23 99% | 2.206 100% | 2.235 98% |
| CCT | 8346 78% | 8037 81% | 7361 88% | 7125 91% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 114.9 | |||
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 16% /
10% | 17% /
10% | 104% /
66% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 34 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 19 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 15 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 90 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 58 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 33 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. » 94 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 100 Hz | ≤ 15 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 100 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 15 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 100 Hz is very low, so the flickering may cause eyestrain and headaches after extended use. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8715 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Sony Xperia L4 | |
| Realme 6i | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Motorola Moto G8 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762 (4404 - 7465, n=18) | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| Sony Xperia L4 | |
| Realme 6i | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Motorola Moto G8 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762 (3805 - 5380, n=21) | |
| GFXBench | |
| on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Sony Xperia L4 | |
| Realme 6i | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Motorola Moto G8 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762 (6.4 - 7.6, n=21) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.6 - 166, n=207, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Sony Xperia L4 | |
| Realme 6i | |
| Motorola Moto G8 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762 (3.5 - 4.7, n=21) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2.3 - 321, n=207, last 2 years) | |
| on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Sony Xperia L4 | |
| Realme 6i | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Motorola Moto G8 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762 (4.1 - 4.8, n=21) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (0.85 - 144, n=207, last 2 years) | |
| 2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Sony Xperia L4 | |
| Realme 6i | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Motorola Moto G8 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762 (1.3 - 1.6, n=21) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (0.85 - 129, n=207, last 2 years) | |
| Sony Xperia L4 | Realme 6i | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | Motorola Moto G8 | Average 64 GB eMMC Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 109% | 108% | 79% | 4% | 743% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 293.4 | 309.5 5% | 496.6 69% | 301 3% | 274 ? -7% | 1887 ? 543% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 165 | 256.4 55% | 214.8 30% | 239 45% | 176.6 ? 7% | 1471 ? 792% |
| Random Read 4KB | 61.2 | 73.5 20% | 137 124% | 57.3 -6% | 59.4 ? -3% | 278 ? 354% |
| Random Write 4KB | 22.5 | 150.9 571% | 123.6 449% | 128.1 469% | 32.2 ? 43% | 311 ? 1282% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 83.5 ? | 84.6 ? 1% | 74.5 ? -11% | 68.7 ? -18% | 77.4 ? -7% | |
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 62.5 ? | 64.5 ? 3% | 54.9 ? -12% | 48.7 ? -22% | 58.3 ? -7% |
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 41.1 °C / 106 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 °C / 104 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 31 °C / 88 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Sony Xperia L4 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (75.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 29.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.9% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (29.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 75% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 21% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 86% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 11% 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%
| Sony Xperia L4 3580 mAh | Realme 6i 5000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S 5020 mAh | Motorola Moto G8 4000 mAh | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | |||||
| WiFi Websurfing | 783 | 1318 68% | 1187 52% | 988 26% | 991 ? 27% |
För
Emot
Omdöme - Det räcker inte att se bra ut
Läs den fullständiga versionen av den här recensionen på engelska här.
Xperia L4 har en nedtonad men väldigt chic design och ser mycket dyrare ut än den är. Tyvärr hjälper detta inte särskilt mycket om insidan inte håller måttet: Mjukvaran är utdaterad, precis som säkerhetspatcharna. Skärmen är inte tillräckligt ljusstark och har en kraftig blå ton.
På fördelssidan så låter högtalarna trevligt, den har aningen snabbare WLAN än en del jämförbara enheter och det finns möjlighet att ladda telefonen snabbt om du köper en lämplig laddare. Dessutom tar kameran skapliga bilder och är ganska flexibel med sina många linser.
Konkurrensen är dock hård i den här miljön och Sony Xperia L4 är definitivt inte en vinnare i sin klass när det kommer till prestanda i förhållande till priset.
Sony Xperia L4 har ett övertygande utseende men den utdaterade mjukvaran håller inte måttet.
Men om du förälskat dig i den här telefonens design och undrar om du får en ordentlig telefon för dina pengar kan jag säga följande: Om priset går ner kan du absolut ta en titt på den. Men då får du inte vara så noggrann med uppdaterad mjukvara och lång batteritid.
Sony Xperia L4
- 08/13/2020 v7 (old)
Florian Schmitt
Price comparison
