小米9 SE智能手机评测
» Notebookcheck多媒体笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck游戏笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck低价办公/商务笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck高端办公/商务笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck工作站笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck亚笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck超级本产品Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck变形本产品Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck平板电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck智能手机Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck评测过最出色的笔记本电脑屏幕
» Notebookcheck售价500欧元以下笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck售价300欧元以下笔记本电脑Top 10排名
|
Brightness Distribution: 97 %
Center on Battery: 583 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.6 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 2.7 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
99.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.27
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6" | Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 Super AMOLED, 2220x1080, 6" | Sony Xperia 10 IPS-LCD, 2520x1080, 6" | Xiaomi Poco F1 IPS, 2246x1080, 6.2" | Samsung Galaxy A50 AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | Motorola Moto G7 Plus IPS, 2270x1080, 6.2" | Xiaomi Mi 9 AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 dE 2000 * | 1.6 | 1.5 6% | 4.6 -188% | 3.8 -138% | 2.64 -65% | 6.41 -301% | 0.9 44% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 3.9 | 3.6 8% | 12.1 -210% | 7.1 -82% | 9.23 -137% | 10.86 -178% | 2 49% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 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 (worst case, e.g., 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: 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. |
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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 12 % 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 | ||
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 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 12 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). |
Basemark GPU 1.1 | |
1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Xiaomi Poco F1 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 () | |
Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Xiaomi Poco F1 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 () | |
1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Xiaomi Poco F1 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 () |
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 | |
Sony Xperia 10 | |
Xiaomi Poco F1 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 () |
VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | |
Xiaomi Poco F1 | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 () | |
Average of class Smartphone (2523 - 10071, n=6, last 2 years) |
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 (205 - 7616, n=57, last 2 years) |
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=169, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE (Chrome 73) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 () | |
Sony Xperia 10 (Chrome Version 73) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=152, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE (Chrome 73) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 () | |
Samsung Galaxy A50 (Chome 73) |
WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE (Chrome 73) | |
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 | |
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=210, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
Xiaomi Poco 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) | |
Motorola Moto G7 Plus | |
Sony Xperia 10 (Chrome Version 73) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
Sony Xperia 10 (Chrome Version 73) | |
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 Poco F1 (Chrome 68) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=167, last 2 years) |
* ... smaller is better
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE | Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 | Sony Xperia 10 | Xiaomi Poco 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% | -27% | -2% | -7% | 42% | 206% | 99% | 605% | |
Sequential Read 256KB | 492.5 | 295.8 -40% | 273.8 -44% | 705 43% | 507 3% | 283.6 -42% | 666 35% | 530 ? 8% | 1887 ? 283% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 190.1 | 104.9 -45% | 232.9 23% | 155.6 -18% | 192.1 1% | 208.7 10% | 388.3 104% | 212 ? 12% | 1471 ? 674% |
Random Read 4KB | 115.8 | 84 -27% | 53.1 -54% | 101 -13% | 98.9 -15% | 76.6 -34% | 149.4 29% | 130.6 ? 13% | 278 ? 140% |
Random Write 4KB | 21.86 | 15.45 -29% | 14.39 -34% | 17.81 -19% | 18.2 -17% | 73.1 234% | 165.3 656% | 101.2 ? 363% | 311 ? 1323% |
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 78.2 ? | 83.2 ? | 85.3 ? | 73.9 ? | 82.8 ? | 68.3 ? | |||
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 64.4 ? | 63.8 ? | 65.6 ? | 60.7 ? | 62.1 ? | 53.2 ? |
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 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 63.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 34.2 °C / 94 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °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 32.8 °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 (18.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 18% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 73% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 39% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 53% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
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 (17.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 9% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 84% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 29% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 63% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Off / Standby | 0.01 / 0.21 Watt |
Idle | 0.53 / 1.18 / 1.2 Watt |
Load |
3.04 / 4.83 Watt |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE 3070 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 3300 mAh | Sony Xperia 10 2870 mAh | Xiaomi Poco 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% | -69% | |
Idle Minimum * | 0.53 | 0.71 -34% | 0.72 -36% | 0.65 -23% | 0.8 -51% | 1.1 -108% | 0.67 -26% | 0.54 ? -2% | 0.883 ? -67% |
Idle Average * | 1.18 | 1.36 -15% | 2.16 -83% | 1.97 -67% | 1.5 -27% | 1.7 -44% | 1.26 -7% | 1.285 ? -9% | 1.467 ? -24% |
Idle Maximum * | 1.2 | 1.47 -23% | 2.17 -81% | 2.01 -68% | 1.7 -42% | 2.1 -75% | 1.29 -8% | 1.32 ? -10% | 1.621 ? -35% |
Load Average * | 3.04 | 5.13 -69% | 3.32 -9% | 4.29 -41% | 5.9 -94% | 5.1 -68% | 3.71 -22% | 3.01 ? 1% | 6.55 ? -115% |
Load Maximum * | 4.83 | 7.89 -63% | 5.34 -11% | 9.05 -87% | 8.3 -72% | 7.9 -64% | 9.3 -93% | 4.88 ? -1% | 9.9 ? -105% |
* ... smaller is better
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE 3070 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A7 2018 3300 mAh | Sony Xperia 10 2870 mAh | Xiaomi Poco 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% |
Pros
Cons
凭借Mi 9 SE,小米成功地创造了一款紧凑且具有吸引力的中端智能手机。SE继承了Mi 9的一些旗舰功能,同时降低了成本。小米为该设备配备了高对比度OLED面板,优秀的相机和不错的单声道扬声器以及精美的机身。
无论您购买哪种型号,电池容量和LTE覆盖率都非常差。此外,缺少microSD卡插槽,IP认证,通知LED或耳机插孔似乎都使Mi 9 SE错失了占领更大的中端智能手机市场的机会。
如果您正在寻找一款价格低廉的水桶机,那么小米Mi 9 SE可能是您的最佳选择。
在撰写本文时,Mi 9 SE的零售价仅为2199元,这使其物超所值。然而,我们已经看到它在网上有一些优惠。但无论是官方还是第三方价格,Mi 9 SE仍然是一款出色的中端智能手机。
Xiaomi Mi 9 SE
- 05/06/2019 v6 (old)
Marcus Herbrich