Test: Xiaomi Mi 11i - En av de allra billigaste toppskikts-telefonerna med Snapdragon 888 (Sammanfattning)
Testgrupp
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 86.6 % v7 (old) | 08/2021 | Xiaomi Mi 11i SD 888 5G, Adreno 660 | 196 g | 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
| 85.9 % v7 (old) | 05/2021 | Asus ZenFone 8 SD 888 5G, Adreno 660 | 169 g | 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 5.92" | 2400x1080 | |
| 87.2 % v7 (old) | 04/2021 | OnePlus 9 SD 888 5G, Adreno 660 | 192 g | 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.55" | 2400x1080 | |
| 85.9 % v7 (old) | 04/2021 | Realme GT 5G SD 888 5G, Adreno 660 | 186 g | 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.43" | 2400x1080 | |
| 86 % v7 (old) | 04/2021 | Xiaomi Poco F3 SD 870, Adreno 650 | 196 g | 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
| 87.3 % v7 (old) | 02/2021 | Xiaomi Mi 11 SD 888 5G, Adreno 660 | 196 g | 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.81" | 3200x1440 |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Asus ZenFone 8 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11i | |
| Realme GT 5G | |
| Xiaomi Poco F3 | |
| OnePlus 9 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Asus ZenFone 8 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 | |
| Realme GT 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11i | |
| OnePlus 9 | |
| Xiaomi Poco F3 | |
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.
Daylight - Scene 1Daylight - Scene 2Ultra wide-angle5x zoomLow-light photo
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 96 %
Mitt på batteriet: 875 cd/m²
Kontrast: ∞:1 (Svärta: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.8 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 3.4 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
96.6% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.19
| Xiaomi Mi 11i AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.7" | Asus ZenFone 8 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 5.9" | OnePlus 9 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.6" | Realme GT 5G Super AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.4" | Xiaomi Poco F3 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.7" | Xiaomi Mi 11 LED DotDisplay, 3200x1440, 6.8" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -13% | 30% | 11% | 29% | 19% | |
| Brightness middle | 875 | 758 -13% | 731 -16% | 605 -31% | 889 2% | 840 -4% |
| Brightness | 879 | 759 -14% | 739 -16% | 606 -31% | 902 3% | 845 -4% |
| Brightness Distribution | 96 | 98 2% | 96 0% | 97 1% | 95 -1% | 98 2% |
| Black Level * | ||||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.8 | 3.5 -94% | 0.59 67% | 1.3 28% | 0.9 50% | 1.2 33% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 4.7 | 1.3 72% | 3.1 34% | 1.9 60% | 2.7 43% | |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 3.4 | 1.6 53% | 0.9 74% | 1.3 62% | 1.3 62% | 2 41% |
| Gamma | 2.19 100% | 2.23 99% | 2.243 98% | 2.25 98% | 2.26 97% | 2.26 97% |
| CCT | 6220 105% | 6527 100% | 6573 99% | 6372 102% | 6614 98% | 6492 100% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 500 Hz | ≤ 64 % brightness setting |   |
The display backlight flickers at 500 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 64 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 500 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 8743 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 1.2 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. » 9 % 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 | ||
| 2.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 1.6 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 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 9 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). | ||
| GFXBench 3.1 | |
| on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11i | |
| Asus ZenFone 8 | |
| OnePlus 9 | |
| Realme GT 5G | |
| Xiaomi Poco F3 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G (36 - 105, n=20) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 158, n=169, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11i | |
| Asus ZenFone 8 | |
| OnePlus 9 | |
| Realme GT 5G | |
| Xiaomi Poco F3 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G (69 - 126, n=20) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (8.3 - 341, n=169, last 2 years) | |
| AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11i | |
| OnePlus 9 | |
| Xiaomi Poco F3 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G (569595 - 740847, n=12) | |
| AImark - Score v2.x (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11i | |
| OnePlus 9 | |
| Realme GT 5G | |
| Xiaomi Poco F3 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G (171404 - 264766, n=15) | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=161, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11i (Chrome 92.0.4515.115) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G (61.3 - 125.1, n=13) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 (Chrome 88) | |
| Xiaomi Poco F3 (Chrome 90) | |
| OnePlus 9 (MS Edge) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11i (Chrome 92.0.4515.115) | |
| Asus ZenFone 8 (Chrome 90) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G (77 - 223, n=19) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 (Chrome 88) | |
| OnePlus 9 (MS Edge) | |
| Realme GT 5G (Chrome 91) | |
| Xiaomi Poco F3 (Chrome 90) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=146, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11i (Chrome 92.0.4515.115) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G (46.9 - 121, n=12) | |
| Xiaomi Poco F3 (Chrome 90) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 (Chrome 88) | |
| OnePlus 9 (MS Edge) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11i (Chrome 92.0.4515.115) | |
| Asus ZenFone 8 (Chrome 90) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G (103 - 182, n=18) | |
| Xiaomi Poco F3 (Chrome 90) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 (Chrome 88) | |
| OnePlus 9 (MS Edge) | |
| Realme GT 5G (Chrome 91) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11i (Chrome 92.0.4515.115) | |
| Asus ZenFone 8 (Chrome 90) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=203, last 2 years) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G (23491 - 47543, n=20) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 (Chrome 88) | |
| Xiaomi Poco F3 (Chrome 90) | |
| OnePlus 9 (Chrome89) | |
| Realme GT 5G (Chrome 91) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Realme GT 5G (Chrome 91) | |
| Xiaomi Poco F3 (Chrome 90) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 (Chrome 88) | |
| OnePlus 9 (Chrome89) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=160, last 2 years) | |
| Asus ZenFone 8 (Chrome 90) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G (891 - 1841, n=20) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11i (Chrome 92.0.4515.115) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Xiaomi Mi 11i | Asus ZenFone 8 | OnePlus 9 | Realme GT 5G | Xiaomi Poco F3 | Xiaomi Mi 11 | Average 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 36% | 21% | 3% | 2% | 33% | 58% | 69% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 1628 | 1781 9% | 1872 15% | 1587 -3% | 1378 -15% | 1615 -1% | 1749 ? 7% | 1839 ? 13% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 552 | 767 39% | 739 34% | 575 4% | 684 24% | 754 37% | 1163 ? 111% | 1425 ? 158% |
| Random Read 4KB | 181 | 292.3 61% | 225.4 25% | 198.7 10% | 208 15% | 278.5 54% | 286 ? 58% | 277 ? 53% |
| Random Write 4KB | 205.9 | 272.9 33% | 221.4 8% | 208.4 1% | 170.6 -17% | 289.3 41% | 319 ? 55% | 309 ? 50% |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 39.5 °C / 103 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 40.1 °C / 104 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.9 °C / 84 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Xiaomi Mi 11i audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.2% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.1% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 12% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 80% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 34% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 58% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Xiaomi Mi 11 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 11% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 81% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 32% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 60% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| Av/Standby |   0.02 / 0.37 Watt |
| Låg belastning |  0.98 / 1.4 / 1.46 Watt |
| Hög belastning |
6.21 / 9.62 Watt |
    
| |
Förklaring:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11i 4520 mAh | Asus ZenFone 8 4000 mAh | OnePlus 9 4500 mAh | Realme GT 5G 4500 mAh | Xiaomi Poco F3 4520 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 11 4600 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 24% | -20% | -5% | 13% | -31% | -6% | -2% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.98 | 0.82 16% | 0.9 8% | 1.14 -16% | 0.76 22% | 1.57 -60% | 1.066 ? -9% | 0.894 ? 9% |
| Idle Average * | 1.4 | 1.1 21% | 1.7 -21% | 1.84 -31% | 1.29 8% | 1.92 -37% | 1.58 ? -13% | 1.456 ? -4% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.46 | 1.16 21% | 2.7 -85% | 1.87 -28% | 1.45 1% | 1.94 -33% | 1.733 ? -19% | 1.616 ? -11% |
| Load Average * | 6.21 | 4.24 32% | 5.4 13% | 4.21 32% | 4.6 26% | 6.32 -2% | 5.46 ? 12% | 6.45 ? -4% |
| Load Maximum * | 9.62 | 6.83 29% | 11.1 -15% | 8.07 16% | 8.87 8% | 11.65 -21% | 9.79 ? -2% | 9.8 ? -2% |
* ... smaller is better
Energiförbrukning: Geekbench (150 cd/m²)
Energiförbrukning: GFXBench (150 cd/m²)
| Xiaomi Mi 11i 4520 mAh | Asus ZenFone 8 4000 mAh | OnePlus 9 4500 mAh | Realme GT 5G 4500 mAh | Xiaomi Poco F3 4520 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 11 4600 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -36% | -7% | 9% | 4% | -22% | |
| Reader / Idle | 1658 | 1623 -2% | 1562 -6% | 1144 -31% | ||
| H.264 | 1017 | 928 -9% | 918 -10% | 971 -5% | ||
| WiFi v1.3 | 690 | 442 -36% | 854 24% | 755 9% | 805 17% | 527 -24% |
| Load | 290 | 168 -42% | 329 13% | 214 -26% |
För
Emot
Omdöme: Xiaomi Mi 11i - Närmar sig Mi 11
Läs den fullständiga versionen av den här recensionen på engelska här.
Med Mi 11i bryggar Xiaomi det ganska stora gapet mellan Mi 11 Lite 5G och Mi 11. Men tack vare en Snapdragon 888 ligger Mi 11i betydligt närmare Mi 11, som också använder denna toppskikts-SoC. Lagringskapaciteten på 8/128 GB respektive 8/256 GB är också identisk mellan de båda enheterna.
Vad är det då som separerar Mi 11i från Mi 11? På 6.67 tum är den kompaktare än Mi 11 på 6.81 tum och har lägre upplösning (2400x1080 pixlar jämfört med 3200x1440 pixlar). Men AMOLED-skärmarna är ändå jämförbara när det kommer till ljusstyrka och bilduppdatering (120 Hz). Den största skillnaden efter skärmen: Mi 11i har också en kamera på 108 MP, men den använder Samsungs HM2-sensor som inte är lika kraftfull. Foton ser därför lite bättre ut på Mi 11.
Xiaomi Mi 11i är precis lika snabb som Mi 11, men skärmen är inte lika högupplöst och kameramodulen är en aning svagare. Däremot kommer den med 5G som standard och bilduppdatering i 120 Hz, allt till ett lägre instegspris.
Andra mindre skillnader är att Mi 11i inte stödjer lika många LTE- och 5G-band som Mi 11. Laddaren är bara på 33 Watt istället för 55 Watt och telefonen kan heller inte laddas trådlöst. Även om batteriet är en aning mindre på 4520 mAh märks inte detta i praktiken.
realme GT 5G och Xiaomi Poco F3 är bra alternativ till Mi 11i och båda har liknande prestanda och funktionalitet.
Xiaomi Mi 11i
- 08/30/2022 v7 (old)
Manuel Masiero
Price comparison
