Test: Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro - Flaggskeppsprestanda till mittenskiktspris (Sammanfattning)
Testgrupp
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 86.9 % v7 (old) | 05/2021 | Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro SD 888 5G, Adreno 660 | 196 g | 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
| 83 % v7 (old) | 04/2021 | Samsung Galaxy A52 5G SD 750G 5G, Adreno 619 | 189 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
| 80.6 % v7 (old) | 05/2021 | Nokia X20 SD 480, Adreno 619 | 220 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
| 85.9 % v7 (old) | 05/2021 | Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G SD 780G 5G, Adreno 642 | 159 g | 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash | 6.55" | 2400x1080 | |
| 85.4 % v7 (old) | 05/2021 | Motorola Moto G100 SD 870, Adreno 650 | 207 g | 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.70" | 2520x1080 |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro | |
| Motorola Moto G100 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G | |
| Nokia X20 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro | |
| Motorola Moto G100 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G | |
| Nokia X20 | |
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.
Wide angleWide angleLow Light5x-ZoomUltra wide angle
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 97 %
Mitt på batteriet: 864 cd/m²
Kontrast: ∞:1 (Svärta: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 1.4 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
97.1% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.18
| Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro Super AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.7" | Samsung Galaxy A52 5G Super AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.5" | Nokia X20 IPS, 2400x1080, 6.7" | Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.6" | Motorola Moto G100 IPS/LTPS, 2520x1080, 6.7" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | -85% | -217% | -102% | -203% | |
| Brightness middle | 864 | 744 -14% | 646 -25% | 863 0% | 562 -35% |
| Brightness | 867 | 749 -14% | 617 -29% | 860 -1% | 535 -38% |
| Brightness Distribution | 97 | 98 1% | 89 -8% | 93 -4% | 90 -7% |
| Black Level * | 0.7 | 0.57 | |||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1 | 2.2 -120% | 5.71 -471% | 3.2 -220% | 3.99 -299% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 1.7 | 7 -312% | 8.9 -424% | 5.2 -206% | 9.74 -473% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1.4 | 2.1 -50% | 6.2 -343% | 3.9 -179% | 6.5 -364% |
| Gamma | 2.18 101% | 2.06 107% | 2.122 104% | 2.33 94% | 2.174 101% |
| CCT | 6346 102% | 6516 100% | 8256 79% | 7299 89% | 6882 94% |
| Contrast | 923 | 986 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 495 Hz | ≤ 66 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 495 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 66 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 495 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 8705 (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 (20.9 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 3.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 1.6 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. » 10 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). | ||
| AImark - Score v2.x (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G | |
| Nokia X20 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G (171404 - 264766, n=15) | |
| Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=169, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro (Chrome90) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G (61.3 - 125.1, n=13) | |
| Motorola Moto G100 (Chrome 90) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G (Chrome90) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G (Chrome 89) | |
| Nokia X20 (Chrome 90) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G (77 - 223, n=19) | |
| Motorola Moto G100 (Chrome 90) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G (Chrome90) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G (Chrome 89) | |
| Nokia X20 (Chrome 90) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=152, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro (Chrome90) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G (46.9 - 121, n=12) | |
| Motorola Moto G100 (Chome 90) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G (Chrome90) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G (Chrome 89) | |
| Nokia X20 (Chome 90) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
| Motorola Moto G100 (Chrome 90) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G (103 - 182, n=18) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G (Chrome90) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G (Chrome 89) | |
| Nokia X20 (Chrome 90) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=210, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro (Chrome90) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G (23491 - 47543, n=20) | |
| Motorola Moto G100 (Chrome 90) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G (Chrome90) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G (Chrome 89) | |
| Nokia X20 (Chrome 90) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Nokia X20 (Chrome 90) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G (Chrome 89) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G (Chrome90) | |
| Motorola Moto G100 (Chrome 90) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=167, last 2 years) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G (891 - 1841, n=20) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro (Chrome90) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro | Samsung Galaxy A52 5G | Nokia X20 | Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G | Motorola Moto G100 | Average 128 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -31% | -44% | -17% | 6% | 3% | 43% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 1456 | 927 -36% | 489.3 -66% | 949 -35% | 1730 19% | 1602 ? 10% | 1887 ? 30% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 709 | 484.6 -32% | 462.7 -35% | 710 0% | 717 1% | 748 ? 6% | 1471 ? 107% |
| Random Read 4KB | 209.6 | 176.1 -16% | 165.4 -21% | 207.9 -1% | 253.6 21% | 243 ? 16% | 278 ? 33% |
| Random Write 4KB | 306 | 179.2 -41% | 144.6 -53% | 206.9 -32% | 252.9 -17% | 244 ? -20% | 311 ? 2% |
| 3DMark - Wild Life Stress Test Stability | |
| Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A52 5G | |
| Nokia X20 | |
| Motorola Moto G100 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro | |
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 40.2 °C / 104 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 40.3 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.8 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.3% 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
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.9% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 13% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 79% 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%
Samsung Galaxy A52 5G audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (89 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 6.2% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 22% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 69% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 43% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 49% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| Av/Standby |   0.02 / 0.34 Watt |
| Låg belastning |  0.93 / 1.46 / 1.49 Watt |
| Hög belastning |
5.17 / 9.22 Watt |
    
| |
Förklaring:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro 4520 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A52 5G 4500 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G 4250 mAh | Motorola Moto G100 5000 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 5G | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 3% | -4% | -13% | -10% | -7% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.93 | 0.92 1% | 0.83 11% | 0.9 3% | 1.066 ? -15% | 0.88 ? 5% |
| Idle Average * | 1.46 | 1.78 -22% | 1.92 -32% | 1.5 -3% | 1.58 ? -8% | 1.444 ? 1% |
| Idle Maximum * | 1.49 | 1.81 -21% | 1.97 -32% | 2.1 -41% | 1.733 ? -16% | 1.6 ? -7% |
| Load Average * | 5.17 | 3.86 25% | 3.84 26% | 6.7 -30% | 5.46 ? -6% | 6.57 ? -27% |
| Load Maximum * | 9.22 | 6.14 33% | 8.6 7% | 8.5 8% | 9.79 ? -6% | 9.91 ? -7% |
* ... smaller is better
| Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro 4520 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A52 5G 4500 mAh | Nokia X20 4470 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 11 Lite 5G 4250 mAh | Motorola Moto G100 5000 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | |||||
| WiFi v1.3 | 724 | 710 -2% | 879 21% | 734 1% | 1049 45% |
För
Emot
Omdöme: Redmi K40 Pro
Redmi K40 Pro är ett kraftpaket gjord för prestanda med en utmärkt OLED-skärm och bra stereohögtalare. Xiaomis smartphone kommer med hela paketet för ett pris på 4000 - 5000 kronor, vilket är svårt att slå. Men den som är intresserad får eventuellt vänta på att nya Poco F3 släpps. Vidare förekommer Xiaomis kända svagheter (USB 2.0, inget UHD-stöd på den främre kameran) också på K40 Pro.
Om du prioriterar prestanda och skärm kommer du inte att hitta en bättre smartphone än K40 Pro för under 4.500 kronor.
Den välkända kamerasensorn från Sony presterar riktigt bra i dagsljus men sätter inte direkt någon ny standard i det övre mittenskiktet. Eftersom Xiaomi inte har fokuserat på kamerakvalitet har K40 Pro heller varken teleobjektiv eller OIS. Ultra-vidvinkelslinsen, med sin sensor på 8 MP, har också märkbart sämre kvalitet.
Xiaomi Redmi K40 Pro
- 08/31/2022 v7 (old)
Marcus Herbrich
Price comparison
