Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Smartphone rövid értékelés - A jobbik Redmi 9 egy 64-MP-es négyes kamerával
Secondary Camera: 13 MPix (f/2.3, 29mm, 1/3.1", 1.12 µm)
Comparison devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
80 % | 12/2020 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2 | 199 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.53" | 2340x1080 | |
78 % | 06/2020 | Xiaomi Redmi 9 Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2 | 198 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 6.53" | 2340x1080 | |
81 % | 07/2020 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S SD 720G, Adreno 618 | 209 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
76 % | 06/2020 | Samsung Galaxy A21s Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2 | 192 g | 32 GB eMMC Flash | 6.50" | 1600x720 | |
78 % | 06/2020 | realme 6i Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2 | 199 g | 128 GB eMMC Flash | 6.50" | 1600x720 | |
75 % | 06/2020 | Sony Xperia L4 Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320 | 178 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.20" | 1680x720 |
» 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
Size Comparison
Networking | |
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10 | |
Average of class Smartphone (15.5 - 1414, n=302, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | |
Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
Xiaomi Redmi 9 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
Sony Xperia L4 | |
realme 6i | |
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10 | |
Average of class Smartphone (5.59 - 1599, n=302, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Redmi 9 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | |
Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
Sony Xperia L4 | |
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.
Wide angleLow light5x ZoomUltra wide angleWide angle

|
Fényerő megoszlás: 89 %
Centrumban: 553 cd/m²
Kontraszt: 4608:1 (Fekete: 0.12 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.8 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.6
ΔE Greyscale 2.2 | 0.64-98 Ø5.9
97.7% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.3
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 IPS LCD, 2340x1080, 6.53 | Xiaomi Redmi 9 IPS LCD, 2340x1080, 6.53 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S IPS, 2400x1080, 6.67 | Samsung Galaxy A21s PLS, 1600x720, 6.50 | realme 6i IPS, 1600x720, 6.50 | Sony Xperia L4 IPS, 1680x720, 6.20 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | -68% | -63% | -71% | -62% | -63% | |
Brightness middle | 553 | 476 -14% | 622 12% | 540 -2% | 518 -6% | 429 -22% |
Brightness | 527 | 436 -17% | 612 16% | 509 -3% | 484 -8% | 404 -23% |
Brightness Distribution | 89 | 86 -3% | 94 6% | 91 2% | 89 0% | 92 3% |
Black Level * | 0.12 | 0.67 -458% | 0.56 -367% | 0.36 -200% | 0.26 -117% | 0.26 -117% |
Contrast | 4608 | 710 -85% | 1111 -76% | 1500 -67% | 1992 -57% | 1650 -64% |
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 * | 3.8 | 3.51 8% | 3.98 -5% | 6.58 -73% | 5.8 -53% | 6.14 -62% |
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. * | 8.7 | 9.38 -8% | 7.33 16% | 11.55 -33% | 11 -26% | 10.51 -21% |
Greyscale DeltaE2000 * | 2.2 | 1.5 32% | 4.5 -105% | 6.4 -191% | 7.3 -232% | 6.6 -200% |
Gamma | 2.3 96% | 2.166 102% | 2.206 100% | 2.206 100% | 2.23 99% | 2.23 99% |
CCT | 6727 97% | 6485 100% | 7361 88% | 8482 77% | 8037 81% | 8346 78% |
Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 114.9 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM not detected | |||
In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9711 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 151500) Hz was measured. |
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
25.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 12.4 ms rise | |
↘ 13.2 ms fall | ||
The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 46 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (24.2 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
38.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 19.6 ms rise | |
↘ 19.2 ms fall | ||
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 43 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (38.5 ms). |
Geekbench 5.3 | |
OpenCL Score 5.3 (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | |
Xiaomi Redmi 9 | |
Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
Average Mediatek Helio G85 (1185 - 1198, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (255 - 7514, n=86, last 2 years) | |
Vulkan Score 5.3 (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | |
Xiaomi Redmi 9 | |
Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
Average Mediatek Helio G85 (1163 - 1179, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (72 - 6524, n=86, last 2 years) | |
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | |
Xiaomi Redmi 9 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
realme 6i | |
Sony Xperia L4 | |
Average Mediatek Helio G85 (1259 - 1305, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (248 - 4201, n=189, last 2 years) | |
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | |
Xiaomi Redmi 9 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
realme 6i | |
Sony Xperia L4 | |
Average Mediatek Helio G85 (354 - 356, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (58 - 1604, n=189, last 2 years) |
PCMark for Android | |
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | |
Xiaomi Redmi 9 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
realme 6i | |
Sony Xperia L4 | |
Average Mediatek Helio G85 (8655 - 8698, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (82 - 15299, n=278, last 2 years) | |
Work performance score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | |
Xiaomi Redmi 9 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
realme 6i | |
Sony Xperia L4 | |
Average Mediatek Helio G85 (11421 - 11889, n=2) | |
Average of class Smartphone (2689 - 19989, n=256, last 2 years) |
VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | |
Xiaomi Redmi 9 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
realme 6i | |
Average Mediatek Helio G85 | |
Average of class Smartphone (421 - 7649, n=57, last 2 years) |
BaseMark OS II | |
Web (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | |
Xiaomi Redmi 9 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
realme 6i | |
Average Mediatek Helio G85 | |
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 2169, n=216, last 2 years) | |
Graphics (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | |
Xiaomi Redmi 9 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
realme 6i | |
Average Mediatek Helio G85 | |
Average of class Smartphone (186 - 16996, n=216, last 2 years) | |
Memory (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | |
Xiaomi Redmi 9 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
realme 6i | |
Average Mediatek Helio G85 | |
Average of class Smartphone (434 - 9044, n=216, last 2 years) | |
System (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | |
Xiaomi Redmi 9 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
realme 6i | |
Average Mediatek Helio G85 | |
Average of class Smartphone (1160 - 14189, n=216, last 2 years) | |
Overall (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | |
Xiaomi Redmi 9 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
Samsung Galaxy A21s | |
realme 6i | |
Average Mediatek Helio G85 | |
Average of class Smartphone (179 - 6959, n=216, last 2 years) |
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
Average of class Smartphone (10.9 - 161, n=195, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Redmi 9 (Chrome 85) | |
Average Mediatek Helio G85 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85) | |
realme 6i (Chrome 81) | |
Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 375, n=199, last 2 years) | |
realme 6i (Chrome 81) | |
Xiaomi Redmi 9 (Chrome 85) | |
Average Mediatek Helio G85 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85) | |
Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Average of class Smartphone (9 - 196, n=170, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chome 81) | |
Xiaomi Redmi 9 (Chrome 85) | |
realme 6i (Chrome 81) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85) | |
Average Mediatek Helio G85 | |
Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chome 84) |
WebXPRT 3 - --- | |
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 194, n=214, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85) | |
Xiaomi Redmi 9 | |
Average Mediatek Helio G85 | |
realme 6i (Chrome 81) | |
Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
Average of class Smartphone (1986 - 58632, n=226, last 2 years) | |
realme 6i (Chrome 81) | |
Xiaomi Redmi 9 (Chrome 85) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85) | |
Average Mediatek Helio G85 | |
Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score | |
Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84) | |
Average of class Smartphone (460 - 29635, n=227, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Redmi 9 (Chrome 85) | |
realme 6i (Chrome 81) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85) | |
Average Mediatek Helio G85 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) |
* ... smaller is better
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 | Xiaomi Redmi 9 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | Samsung Galaxy A21s | realme 6i | Sony Xperia L4 | Average 64 GB eMMC Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | -23% | 20% | -13% | 4% | -22% | -25% | 29% | |
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 63.51 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | 65 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 2% | 54.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) -14% | 66.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 5% | 64.46 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 1% | 62.5 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) -2% | 58.6 (11.2 - 83.3, n=142) -8% | 59 (1.7 - 83.3, n=207, last 2 years) -7% |
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 84.37 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | 84.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 0% | 74.5 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) -12% | 80 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) -5% | 84.56 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 0% | 83.5 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) -1% | 77.6 (21.1 - 108, n=142) -8% | 76.9 (13.4 - 154, n=207, last 2 years) -9% |
Random Write 4KB | 146.94 | 60.71 -59% | 123.6 -16% | 89.5 -39% | 150.87 3% | 22.5 -85% | 28.9 (3.4 - 147, n=161) -80% | 100 (4.31 - 319, n=287, last 2 years) -32% |
Random Read 4KB | 65.13 | 49.09 -25% | 137 110% | 77.2 19% | 73.46 13% | 61.2 -6% | 57.7 (11.4 - 149, n=161) -11% | 121 (13.5 - 325, n=287, last 2 years) 86% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 248.14 | 119.76 -52% | 214.8 -13% | 104.3 -58% | 256.36 3% | 165 -34% | 177 (40 - 254, n=161) -29% | 286 (11.9 - 1321, n=287, last 2 years) 15% |
Sequential Read 256KB | 306.57 | 289.87 -5% | 496.6 62% | 307 0% | 309.45 1% | 293.4 -4% | 274 (95.6 - 704, n=161) -11% | 683 (41.9 - 2037, n=287, last 2 years) 123% |
PUBG mobile
Real Racing 3
Dead Trigger 2
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 35.8 °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 34.4 °C / 94 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.5 °C / 85 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (92.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (4.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.2% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.9% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 3% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 96% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 23% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 72% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%
Samsung Galaxy A21s audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (79.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.3% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.1% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 56% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 33% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 73% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 21% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%
Kikapcsolt állapot / Készenlét | ![]() ![]() |
Üresjárat | ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Terhelés |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 5020 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi 9 5020 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S 5020 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A21s 5000 mAh | realme 6i 5000 mAh | Sony Xperia L4 3580 mAh | Average Mediatek Helio G85 | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | -28% | -32% | -30% | 23% | 0% | -5% | ||
Idle Minimum * | 0.74 | 1.4 -89% | 1.5 -103% | 1.5 -103% | 0.37 50% | 0.74 -0% | 0.915 (0.37 - 2.3, n=246, last 2 years) -24% | |
Idle Average * | 2.17 | 1.7 22% | 2.1 3% | 2.1 3% | 1.62 25% | 2.17 -0% | 1.827 (0.82 - 3.94, n=246, last 2 years) 16% | |
Idle Maximum * | 2.2 | 2.1 5% | 2.5 -14% | 2.9 -32% | 1.69 23% | 2.2 -0% | 2.12 (0.85 - 4.2, n=246, last 2 years) 4% | |
Load Average * | 4.17 | 5.7 -37% | 5.2 -25% | 4.6 -10% | 3.61 13% | 4.17 -0% | 4.39 (1.94 - 8.4, n=246, last 2 years) -5% | |
Load Maximum * | 6.11 | 8.5 -39% | 7.5 -23% | 6.6 -8% | 5.9 3% | 6.11 -0% | 7.11 (3.06 - 12.3, n=246, last 2 years) -16% |
* ... smaller is better
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 5020 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi 9 5020 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S 5020 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A21s 5000 mAh | realme 6i 5000 mAh | Sony Xperia L4 3580 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | -2% | 10% | -4% | 52% | -10% | |
Reader / Idle | 2294 | 2337 2% | 2263 -1% | 2009 -12% | ||
H.264 | 1116 | 1171 5% | 1269 14% | 1087 -3% | ||
WiFi v1.3 | 867 | 804 -7% | 1187 37% | 943 9% | 1318 52% | 783 -10% |
Load | 314 | 289 -8% | 279 -11% | 287 -9% |
Pro
Kontra
Redmi Note 9 összegzés - Kitűnő belépő az okostelefonok világába
A Xiaomi a következő szavakkal reklámozza a megfizethető, középkategóriás okostelefonját: „Minden, amire szükséged van.” A shenzeni kínai gyártó nem téved nagyot a reklámszlogenjével, mivel a Redmi Note 9 nagyon jó okostelefon-élményt nyújt körülbelül 150 eurós áron - viszont egyértelműen ajánljuk a 20 euróval nagyobb befektetést a 4 GB-os változatért.
Aki egy megfizethető okostelefont keres kevesebb mint 200 euróért, az mindenképpen vegye figyelembe a Redmi Note 9-et.
A Redmi 9-hez képest a Note modell jobb hangszóróval és fő kamerával rendelkezik. A világosabb IPS panelnek egyértelműen nagyobb a kontrasztja és stabilabbak a látószögei, és ennek a mindennapi használatban szemmel látható az előnye. Továbbá a Note 9 alaptartozéka a gyorstöltő.
Viszont a Redmi Note 9 még mindig egy belépőszintű okostelefon, és az is marad. Ennek megfelelően kompromisszumot kell kötnünk a processzor választását, a kamera - főként az ultraszéles látószögű kamera - minőségét, valamint a tárhely és WLAN sebességét illetően.
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 - 09/16/2020 v7
Marcus Herbrich