小米9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: 94 %
Center on Battery: 593 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 0.9 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 1.5 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
95.4% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.27
Xiaomi Mi 9 AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | Apple iPhone XR IPS, 1792x828, 6.1" | Huawei Mate 20 Pro OLED, 3120x1440, 6.3" | Honor View 20 LTPS, 2310x1080, 6.4" | OnePlus 6T Optic AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | Samsung Galaxy S10 Plus OLED, 3040x1440, 6.4" | Xiaomi Mi 8 AMOLED, 2248x1080, 6.2" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | -18% | -22% | -79% | -58% | -113% | -157% | |
Brightness middle | 593 | 672 13% | 576 -3% | 492 -17% | 437 -26% | 710 20% | 430 -27% |
Brightness | 587 | 641 9% | 582 -1% | 475 -19% | 442 -25% | 721 23% | 434 -26% |
Brightness Distribution | 94 | 92 -2% | 90 -4% | 94 0% | 95 1% | 97 3% | 94 0% |
Black Level * | 0.35 | 0.4 | |||||
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 0.9 | 1.3 -44% | 1.3 -44% | 2.4 -167% | 2.21 -146% | 3.7 -311% | 5.09 -466% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 2 | 2.7 -35% | 3.5 -75% | 5.2 -160% | 4.27 -114% | 10.3 -415% | 8.05 -303% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1.5 | 2.2 -47% | 1.6 -7% | 3.2 -113% | 2.1 -40% | 1.5 -0% | 3.3 -120% |
Gamma | 2.27 97% | 2.3 96% | 2.18 101% | 2.06 107% | 2.307 95% | 2.1 105% | 2.257 97% |
CCT | 6548 99% | 6868 95% | 6561 99% | 7125 91% | 6353 102% | 6611 98% | 7026 93% |
Contrast | 1920 | 1230 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 245.1 Hz | ≤ 99 % brightness setting | |
The display backlight flickers at 245.1 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 99 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 245.1 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below. 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). |
PCMark for Android | |
Work performance score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro | |
Honor View 20 | |
OnePlus 6T | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 8 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (10330 - 14439, n=19) | |
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro | |
Honor View 20 | |
OnePlus 6T | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 8 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (8342 - 11440, n=19) |
Basemark GPU 1.1 | |
1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro | |
OnePlus 6T | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 Plus | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (24.5 - 36.3, n=3) | |
Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro | |
OnePlus 6T | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 Plus | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (22.7 - 32.2, n=2) | |
1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro | |
OnePlus 6T | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 Plus | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (33.1 - 37.4, n=3) |
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro | |
Honor View 20 | |
OnePlus 6T | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 Plus | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (217967 - 398720, n=16) |
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro | |
Honor View 20 | |
OnePlus 6T | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 Plus | |
Xiaomi Mi 8 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (239512 - 268271, n=12) |
Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 | |
Apple iPhone XR | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro | |
OnePlus 6T | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 Plus | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (1075 - 1425, n=4) | |
Average of class Smartphone (205 - 7616, n=57, last 2 years) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Apple iPhone XR (Safari Mobile 12.0) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (84.4 - 120, n=17) | |
Honor View 20 (Chrome 71) | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 Plus (Samsung Browser 9.0) | |
OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70) | |
Xiaomi Mi 8 (Chrome 72) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Apple iPhone XR (Safari Mobile 12.0) | |
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=210, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (17011 - 33918, n=21) | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69) | |
Honor View 20 (Chrome 71) | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 Plus (Samsung Browser 9.0) | |
OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70) | |
Xiaomi Mi 8 (Chrome 72) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
Xiaomi Mi 8 (Chrome 72) | |
OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (1852 - 2611, n=19) | |
Honor View 20 (Chrome 71) | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 Plus (Samsung Browser 9.0) | |
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=167, last 2 years) | |
Apple iPhone XR (Safari Mobile 12.0) |
WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
Apple iPhone XR (Safari Mobile 12.0) | |
Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69) | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 Plus (Samsung Browser 9.0) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 (Chrome 73.0.3683.75) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (90 - 129, n=20) | |
Honor View 20 (Chrome 71) | |
Xiaomi Mi 8 (Chrome 72) |
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall | |
Apple iPhone XR (Safari Mobile 12.0) | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69) | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 Plus (Samsung Browser 9.0) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 (260 - 316, n=2) | |
Honor View 20 (Chrome 71) | |
OnePlus 6T (Chrome 70) | |
Xiaomi Mi 8 (Chrome 72) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9 |
* ... smaller is better
Xiaomi Mi 9 | Huawei Mate 20 Pro | Honor View 20 | OnePlus 6T | Samsung Galaxy S10 Plus | Xiaomi Mi 8 | Average 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | -5% | -3% | -33% | -28% | -35% | -24% | 159% | |
Sequential Read 256KB | 666 | 853 28% | 847 27% | 735 10% | 811 22% | 693 4% | 696 ? 5% | 1887 ? 183% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 388.3 | 196.4 -49% | 250.1 -36% | 204.4 -47% | 249.1 -36% | 207.8 -46% | 224 ? -42% | 1471 ? 279% |
Random Read 4KB | 149.4 | 157.4 5% | 168.9 13% | 138.5 -7% | 135.2 -10% | 136.3 -9% | 137.2 ? -8% | 278 ? 86% |
Random Write 4KB | 165.3 | 157.8 -5% | 138.9 -16% | 22 -87% | 22.7 -86% | 21 -87% | 84.7 ? -49% | 311 ? 88% |
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 83.2 ? | 73 ? | 68.6 ? | |||||
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 72.4 ? | 60.7 ? | 52.2 ? |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 31.8 °C / 89 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 30.9 °C / 88 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.9 °C / 82 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
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%
Xiaomi Mi 8 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 64.6% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 64.6% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 64.6% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (124.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 93% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 98% of all tested devices were better, 2% similar, 0% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Off / Standby | 0.01 / 0.24 Watt |
Idle | 0.67 / 1.26 / 1.29 Watt |
Load |
3.71 / 9.3 Watt |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Xiaomi Mi 9 3300 mAh | Apple iPhone XR 2942 mAh | Huawei Mate 20 Pro 4200 mAh | Honor View 20 4000 mAh | OnePlus 6T 3700 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S10 Plus 4100 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 8 3400 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | -38% | -35% | -58% | -11% | -30% | -76% | -24% | -31% | |
Idle Minimum * | 0.67 | 0.61 9% | 0.95 -42% | 0.97 -45% | 0.7 -4% | 0.73 -9% | 1.5 -124% | 0.939 ? -40% | 0.883 ? -32% |
Idle Average * | 1.26 | 2.67 -112% | 2.17 -72% | 2.58 -105% | 1.1 13% | 1.53 -21% | 2.2 -75% | 1.506 ? -20% | 1.467 ? -16% |
Idle Maximum * | 1.29 | 2.69 -109% | 2.25 -74% | 2.63 -104% | 2.1 -63% | 2.07 -60% | 2.6 -102% | 1.799 ? -39% | 1.621 ? -26% |
Load Average * | 3.71 | 4.34 -17% | 4.47 -20% | 5.24 -41% | 4.2 -13% | 6.03 -63% | 6.1 -64% | 4.61 ? -24% | 6.55 ? -77% |
Load Maximum * | 9.3 | 5.66 39% | 6.15 34% | 8.73 6% | 8.3 11% | 9.18 1% | 10.9 -17% | 9.04 ? 3% | 9.9 ? -6% |
* ... smaller is better
Xiaomi Mi 9 3300 mAh | Apple iPhone XR 2942 mAh | Huawei Mate 20 Pro 4200 mAh | Honor View 20 4000 mAh | OnePlus 6T 3700 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S10 Plus 4100 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 8 3400 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | 47% | 19% | 25% | 25% | -8% | 9% | |
Reader / Idle | 1650 | 2969 80% | 1747 6% | 1928 17% | 1936 17% | 1560 -5% | 1634 -1% |
H.264 | 1008 | 1011 0% | 854 -15% | 932 -8% | 903 -10% | 921 -9% | 897 -11% |
WiFi v1.3 | 546 | 910 67% | 767 40% | 969 77% | 865 58% | 483 -12% | 736 35% |
Load | 194 | 270 39% | 282 45% | 222 14% | 261 35% | 187 -4% | 215 11% |
Pros
Cons
小米9是一款出色的智能手机,其物超所值的程度足以让其他旗舰手机感到羞耻。基本型号具有6 GB RAM和64 GB存储空间,标准配备齐全。但是,对于许多人来说,128 GB型号可能是更好的选择,因为Mi 9不支持可扩展存储。
小米为所有Mi 9型号配备了出色的三后置摄像头和明亮的AMOLED屏幕,具有典型的色彩精确度,所有这些都装在一个时尚的高品质玻璃外壳里。全新的高通骁龙855 SoC也使Mi 9成为目前性能最强的智能手机之一。
如果您追求的是旗舰体验,但预算有限,小米9是您应该购买的智能手机。它提供了竞争对手所做的一切,但无需花费太多
虽然我们有一些抱怨,例如缺少耳机插孔和没有microSD卡支持,但Mi 9与很多竞争对手都一样缺乏这些功能。优雅的玻璃外壳也容易出现指纹,三后置摄像头外壳使设备在桌面上无法平放,但这些缺点并没有减损2019年初最物美价廉的旗舰智能手机之一。
Xiaomi Mi 9
- 08/31/2022 v7 (old)
Manuel Masiero