Xiaomi Mi 9 SE Smartphone rövid értékelés
Secondary Camera: 20 MPix , f/2.0, 0.9 μm
» A Top 10 multimédiás noteszgép - tesztek alapján
» A Top 10 játékos noteszgép
» A Top 10 belépő szintű üzleti noteszgép
» A Top 10 üzleti noteszgép
» A Top 10 notebook munkaállomása
» A Top 10 okostelefon - tesztek alapján
» A Top 10 táblagép
» A Top 10 Windows tabletje
» A Top 10 subnotebook - tesztek alapján
» A Top 10 300 euró alatti okostelefonja
» A Top 10 120 euró alatti okostelefonja
» A Top 10 phabletje (>5.5-inch)
» A Top 10 noteszgép 500 EUR (~160.000 HUF) alatt
» A Top 10 "pehelysúlyú" gaming notebookja
Networking | |
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Sony Xperia 10 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Average of class Smartphone (5.9 - 1414, n=643) | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 | |
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10 | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Average of class Smartphone (9.4 - 1599, n=643) | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Sony Xperia 10 |
|
Fényerő megoszlás: 97 %
Centrumban: 583 cd/m²
Kontraszt: ∞:1 (Fekete: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.6 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.7
ΔE Greyscale 2.7 | 0.64-98 Ø5.9
99.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.27
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE AMOLED, 2340x1080, 5.97 | Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Super AMOLED, 2220x1080, 6.00 | Sony Xperia 10 IPS-LCD, 2520x1080, 6.00 | Xiaomi Pocophone F1 IPS, 2246x1080, 6.18 | Samsung Galaxy A50 AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.40 | Motorola Moto G7 Plus IPS, 2270x1080, 6.20 | Xiaomi Mi 9 AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.39 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | 10% | -77% | -53% | -30% | -109% | 23% | |
Brightness middle | 583 | 570 -2% | 547 -6% | 489 -16% | 644 10% | 537 -8% | 593 2% |
Brightness | 577 | 565 -2% | 525 -9% | 486 -16% | 628 9% | 525 -9% | 587 2% |
Brightness Distribution | 97 | 93 -4% | 93 -4% | 93 -4% | 91 -6% | 85 -12% | 94 -3% |
Black Level * | 0.36 | 0.34 | 0.58 | ||||
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 * | 1.6 | 1.5 6% | 4.6 -188% | 3.8 -138% | 2.64 -65% | 6.41 -301% | 0.9 44% |
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. * | 3.9 | 3.6 8% | 12.1 -210% | 7.1 -82% | 9.23 -137% | 10.86 -178% | 2 49% |
Greyscale DeltaE2000 * | 2.7 | 1.2 56% | 3.9 -44% | 4.4 -63% | 2.5 7% | 6.7 -148% | 1.5 44% |
Gamma | 2.27 97% | 2.07 106% | 2.17 101% | 2.22 99% | 2.024 109% | 2.099 105% | 2.27 97% |
CCT | 6267 104% | 6504 100% | 7158 91% | 7213 90% | 6649 98% | 8310 78% | 6548 99% |
Contrast | 1519 | 1438 | 926 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 255 Hz | ||
The display backlight flickers at 255 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 255 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: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9717 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured. |
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2 ms rise | |
↘ 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 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 3 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (24.4 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
4.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2.4 ms rise | |
↘ 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 0.8 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 3 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (38.7 ms). |
Geekbench 4.1 - 4.4 | |
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 | |
Sony Xperia 10 | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 | |
Average of class Smartphone (663 - 21070, n=365) | |
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 | |
Sony Xperia 10 | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 | |
Average of class Smartphone (883 - 14476, n=432) | |
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 | |
Sony Xperia 10 | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 | |
Average of class Smartphone (390 - 4970, n=432) |
PCMark for Android | |
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 | |
Sony Xperia 10 | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 (6832 - 8276, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (82 - 15299, n=569) | |
Work performance score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 | |
Sony Xperia 10 | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 (8346 - 11143, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (1077 - 19989, n=718) |
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | |
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Sony Xperia 10 | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 (74 - 74, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (0.5 - 322, n=836) | |
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Sony Xperia 10 | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 (58 - 58, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (1 - 142, n=845) |
GFXBench 3.0 | |
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Sony Xperia 10 | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 (36 - 36, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (0.8 - 180, n=741) | |
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Sony Xperia 10 | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 (33 - 33, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (1.2 - 117, n=749) |
GFXBench 3.1 | |
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Sony Xperia 10 | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 (26 - 26, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (0.87 - 117, n=604) | |
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Sony Xperia 10 | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 (23 - 24, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (1.2 - 110, n=606) |
Basemark GPU 1.1 | |
1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 | |
Average of class Smartphone (7.73 - 85.6, n=74) | |
Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 | |
Average of class Smartphone (1.57 - 63, n=64) | |
1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 | |
Average of class Smartphone (1.88 - 71.6, n=62) |
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 | |
Sony Xperia 10 | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 | |
Average of class Smartphone (17073 - 462516, n=297) |
VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 | |
Average of class Smartphone (119 - 7649, n=101) |
Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 | |
Average of class Smartphone (35 - 3575, n=148) |
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73) | |
Average of class Smartphone (9.13 - 161, n=228) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE (Chrome 73) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 | |
Sony Xperia 10 (Chrome Version 73) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
Average of class Smartphone (6.42 - 196, n=207) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE (Chrome 73) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chome 73) |
WebXPRT 3 - --- | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE (Chrome 73) | |
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 194, n=299) | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chrome 73) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 (47 - 72, n=2) | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 (Chrome 70) | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Sony Xperia 10 (Chrome Version 73) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Chrome 68) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE (Chrome 73) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 (10328 - 13562, n=2) | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chrome 73) | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 (Chrome 70) | |
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 58632, n=831) | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Sony Xperia 10 (Chrome Version 73) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score | |
Sony Xperia 10 (Chrome Version 73) | |
Average of class Smartphone (460 - 59466, n=857) | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 (Chrome 70) | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chrome 73) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 (2912 - 4383, n=2) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE (Chrome 73) | |
Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (Chrome 68) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) |
* ... smaller is better
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 | Sony Xperia 10 | Xiaomi Pocophone F1 | Samsung Galaxy A50 | Motorola Moto G7 Plus | Xiaomi Mi 9 | Average 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | -35% | -28% | -2% | -7% | 42% | 206% | 82% | -3% | |
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 64.39 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | 63.81 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | 65.58 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | 60.7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | 62.1 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | 52.6 (28.6 - 70.2, n=19) | 51.6 (1.7 - 87.1, n=564) | ||
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 78.15 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | 83.23 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | 85.3 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | 73.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | 82.8 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | 67.4 (30.2 - 86, n=19) | 69.5 (8.1 - 96.5, n=564) | ||
Random Write 4KB | 21.86 | 15.45 -29% | 14.39 -34% | 17.81 -19% | 18.2 -17% | 73.1 234% | 165.32 656% | 90.4 (13.5 - 187, n=25) 314% | 40.5 (0.14 - 319, n=936) 85% |
Random Read 4KB | 115.83 | 83.98 -27% | 53.12 -54% | 101.01 -13% | 98.9 -15% | 76.6 -34% | 149.36 29% | 126 (88.4 - 173, n=25) 9% | 63.4 (1.59 - 325, n=936) -45% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 190.1 | 104.87 -45% | 232.87 22% | 155.57 -18% | 192.1 1% | 208.7 10% | 388.27 104% | 197 (143 - 257, n=25) 4% | 140 (2.99 - 1321, n=936) -26% |
Sequential Read 256KB | 492.48 | 295.76 -40% | 273.8 -44% | 705.38 43% | 507.3 3% | 283.6 -42% | 666.06 35% | 496 (409 - 733, n=25) 1% | 364 (12.1 - 2037, n=936) -26% |
PUBG Compare
Asphalt Legends
Dead Trigger 2
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 35.6 °C / 96 F, compared to the average of 35.2 °C / 95 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 34.2 °C / 94 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.6 °C / 85 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (6.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 7% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 88% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 31% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 62% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%
Xiaomi Mi 9 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 5% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 90% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 29% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 64% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%
Kikapcsolt állapot / Készenlét | ![]() ![]() |
Üresjárat | ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Terhelés |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Kulcs:
min: ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE 3070 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 3300 mAh | Sony Xperia 10 2870 mAh | Xiaomi Pocophone F1 4000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A50 4000 mAh | Motorola Moto G7 Plus 3000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9 3300 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | -41% | -44% | -57% | -57% | -72% | -31% | -4% | -50% | |
Idle Minimum * | 0.53 | 0.71 -34% | 0.72 -36% | 0.65 -23% | 0.8 -51% | 1.1 -108% | 0.67 -26% | 0.54 (0.53 - 0.55, n=2) -2% | 0.89 (0.2 - 3.4, n=927) -68% |
Idle Average * | 1.18 | 1.36 -15% | 2.16 -83% | 1.97 -67% | 1.5 -27% | 1.7 -44% | 1.26 -7% | 1.285 (1.18 - 1.39, n=2) -9% | 1.758 (0.6 - 6.2, n=926) -49% |
Idle Maximum * | 1.2 | 1.47 -23% | 2.17 -81% | 2.01 -68% | 1.7 -42% | 2.1 -75% | 1.29 -8% | 1.32 (1.2 - 1.44, n=2) -10% | 2.04 (0.74 - 6.6, n=927) -70% |
Load Average * | 3.04 | 5.13 -69% | 3.32 -9% | 4.29 -41% | 5.9 -94% | 5.1 -68% | 3.71 -22% | 3.01 (2.97 - 3.04, n=2) 1% | 4.12 (0.8 - 10.8, n=921) -36% |
Load Maximum * | 4.83 | 7.89 -63% | 5.34 -11% | 9.05 -87% | 8.3 -72% | 7.9 -64% | 9.3 -93% | 4.88 (4.83 - 4.92, n=2) -1% | 6.13 (1.2 - 14.2, n=921) -27% |
* ... smaller is better
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE 3070 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 3300 mAh | Sony Xperia 10 2870 mAh | Xiaomi Pocophone F1 4000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A50 4000 mAh | Motorola Moto G7 Plus 3000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9 3300 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | 12% | -10% | 30% | 20% | 8% | 9% | |
Reader / Idle | 1374 | 1467 7% | 1006 -27% | 2088 52% | 1587 16% | 1650 20% | |
H.264 | 853 | 836 -2% | 620 -27% | 936 10% | 869 2% | 809 -5% | 1008 18% |
WiFi v1.3 | 510 | 605 19% | 541 6% | 808 58% | 701 37% | 715 40% | 546 7% |
Load | 218 | 273 25% | 233 7% | 220 1% | 275 26% | 196 -10% | 194 -11% |
Pro
Kontra
A Mi 9 SE-vel a Xiaomi-nak sikerült egy vonzó középkategóriás okostelefont alkotni, kompakt dizájnnal. Az SE magán hordozza nagy testvérének egyes zászlóshajós funkcióit, miközben a költségeket alacsonyan tartja. A Xiaomi egy magas kontrasztú OLED panellel, gyönyörű kamerákkal és egy egész jómonó hangszóróval szerelte fel a készüléket egy prémium kinézetű testben.
A legtöbb dolog, amit kritizáltunk, érvénytelenné válik a Mi 9 SE globális verziójának megvásárlásával. Az akku kapacitása és az LTE lefedettség viszont meglepően alacsony, modelltől függetlenül. Emellett a microSD kártya foglalat, IP tanúsítvány, notifikációs LED vagy a fülhallgató csatlakozó hiánya mind kihagyott lehetőségeknek tűnnek, amelyekkel egy még a jelen Mi 9 SE-nél is nagyszerűbb középkategóriás okostelefont lehetne alkotni.
Aki egy olyan mindenest keres, ami nem egy vagyonba kerül, annak a Xiaomi Mi 9 SE nagyon jó választás lehet.
A Mi 9 SE valamivel több, mint 300 Euróba kerül az írás idején, ami egy nagyszerű ár-érték arány. Viszont már 10%-kal olcsóbban is beszerezhető online, így még annál is jobban megéri. A Mi 9 SE egy fantasztikus középkategóriás okostelefon, bármelyik árat is nézzük.
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE - 05/06/2019 v6(old)
Marcus Herbrich