三星Galaxy Note10智能手机评测:还是最强商务手机吗?
» 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: 91 %
Center on Battery: 764 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.66 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 3.2 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
97.1% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.073
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Dynamic AMOLED, 2280x1080, 6.3" | Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.4" | OnePlus 7 Pro AMOLED, 3120x1440, 6.7" | Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | Huawei Mate 20 Pro OLED, 3120x1440, 6.3" | Apple iPhone Xs Max OLED, 2688x1242, 6.5" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | -33% | 19% | 7% | 15% | 17% | |
Brightness middle | 764 | 499 -35% | 586 -23% | 594 -22% | 576 -25% | 656 -14% |
Brightness | 757 | 506 -33% | 584 -23% | 607 -20% | 582 -23% | 659 -13% |
Brightness Distribution | 91 | 96 5% | 97 7% | 91 0% | 90 -1% | 88 -3% |
Black Level * | ||||||
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 2.66 | 4.62 -74% | 1.39 48% | 1.51 43% | 1.3 51% | 1.7 36% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 5.65 | 10.91 -93% | 2.7 52% | 4.27 24% | 3.5 38% | 2.8 50% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 3.2 | 2.2 31% | 1.6 50% | 2.6 19% | 1.6 50% | 1.7 47% |
Gamma | 2.073 106% | 2.103 105% | 2.243 98% | 2.219 99% | 2.18 101% | 1.998 110% |
CCT | 6326 103% | 6115 106% | 6672 97% | 6390 102% | 6561 99% | 6487 100% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 236 Hz | ||
The display backlight flickers at 236 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 236 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 8743 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. |
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 5 ms rise | |
↘ 3 ms fall | ||
The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 18 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 3 ms rise | |
↘ 5 ms fall | ||
The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 17 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). |
PCMark for Android | |
Work performance score (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10 | |
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 | |
OnePlus 7 Pro | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (11011 - 11813, n=2) | |
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10 | |
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 | |
OnePlus 7 Pro | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (8801 - 9027, n=2) |
Basemark GPU 1.1 | |
1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10 | |
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 | |
OnePlus 7 Pro | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (39.1 - 39.7, n=2) | |
Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10 | |
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 | |
OnePlus 7 Pro | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (27.5 - 37.3, n=2) | |
1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10 | |
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 | |
OnePlus 7 Pro | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (33.4 - 33.7, n=2) |
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10 | |
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 | |
OnePlus 7 Pro | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro | |
Apple iPhone Xs Max | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (347082 - 347229, n=2) |
Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10 | |
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 | |
OnePlus 7 Pro | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro | |
Apple iPhone Xs Max | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 () | |
Average of class Smartphone (205 - 7616, n=56, last 2 years) |
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=162, last 2 years) | |
OnePlus 7 Pro (Chrome 74) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Chrome 75) | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 74) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10 (Chrome 76) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (42.7 - 48, n=2) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=148, last 2 years) | |
OnePlus 7 Pro (Chome 74) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10 (Chome 76) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 () | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 71) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Chrome 75) |
WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
Apple iPhone Xs Max (Safari 12) | |
Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69) | |
OnePlus 7 Pro (Chrome 74) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (97 - 118, n=2) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Chrome 75) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10 (Chrome 76) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 (Chrome 68) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Apple iPhone Xs Max (Safari 12) | |
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=204, last 2 years) | |
OnePlus 7 Pro (Chrome 74) | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Chrome 75) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (18908 - 19135, n=2) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10 (Chrome 76) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 (Chrome 68) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 (Chrome 68) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (2478 - 2528, n=2) | |
Samsung Galaxy Note10 (Chrome 76) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Chrome 75) | |
OnePlus 7 Pro (Chrome 74) | |
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69) | |
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=161, last 2 years) | |
Apple iPhone Xs Max (Safari 12) |
* ... smaller is better
Samsung Galaxy Note10 | Samsung Galaxy Note 9 | OnePlus 7 Pro | Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro | Huawei Mate 20 Pro | Apple iPhone Xs Max | Average 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | -58% | -33% | -41% | -37% | 2% | 68% | ||
Sequential Read 256KB | 1478 | 805 -46% | 1468 -1% | 809 -45% | 853 -42% | 1547 ? 5% | 1847 ? 25% | |
Sequential Write 256KB | 590 | 196 -67% | 387 -34% | 196.9 -67% | 196.4 -67% | 575 ? -3% | 1436 ? 143% | |
Random Read 4KB | 194.2 | 134 -31% | 174.1 -10% | 142.5 -27% | 157.4 -19% | 210 ? 8% | 277 ? 43% | |
Random Write 4KB | 191.9 | 21 -89% | 24.8 -87% | 148.5 -23% | 157.8 -18% | 188.5 ? -2% | 308 ? 61% | |
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 77 ? | 83.2 ? | 70.6 ? | |||||
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 66.7 ? | 72.4 ? | 59.8 ? |
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 45.9 °C / 115 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 63.2 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 43.1 °C / 110 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 31.1 °C / 88 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Samsung Galaxy Note10 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.9% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.7% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (8.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 31% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 60% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 51% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 41% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 audio analysis
(-) | not very loud speakers (71.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 15.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.9% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.6% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 4% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 92% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 23% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 72% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Off / Standby | 0 / 0.25 Watt |
Idle | 0.9 / 1.2 / 2 Watt |
Load |
7.7 / 10.5 Watt |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Samsung Galaxy Note10 3500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy Note 9 4000 mAh | OnePlus 7 Pro 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro 4000 mAh | Huawei Mate 20 Pro 4200 mAh | Apple iPhone Xs Max 3174 mAh | Average Samsung Exynos 9825 | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | -17% | -9% | 22% | -3% | 13% | -1% | 4% | |
Idle Minimum * | 0.9 | 0.9 -0% | 0.9 -0% | 0.7 22% | 0.95 -6% | 1 -11% | 0.8 ? 11% | 0.893 ? 1% |
Idle Average * | 1.2 | 1.9 -58% | 1.8 -50% | 1 17% | 2.17 -81% | 1.4 -17% | 1.505 ? -25% | 1.449 ? -21% |
Idle Maximum * | 2 | 3.7 -85% | 2.9 -45% | 1.3 35% | 2.25 -13% | 1.7 15% | 1.96 ? 2% | 1.608 ? 20% |
Load Average * | 7.7 | 5.3 31% | 5.5 29% | 5.2 32% | 4.47 42% | 4.6 40% | 7.64 ? 1% | 6.5 ? 16% |
Load Maximum * | 10.5 | 7.6 28% | 8.2 22% | 10 5% | 6.15 41% | 6.7 36% | 9.92 ? 6% | 9.87 ? 6% |
* ... smaller is better
Samsung Galaxy Note10 3500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy Note 9 4000 mAh | OnePlus 7 Pro 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro 4000 mAh | Huawei Mate 20 Pro 4200 mAh | Apple iPhone Xs Max 3174 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | 28% | 13% | 21% | 20% | 3% | |
Reader / Idle | 1392 | 1687 21% | 1745 25% | 1768 27% | 1747 26% | 1305 -6% |
H.264 | 803 | 896 12% | 802 0% | 987 23% | 854 6% | 801 0% |
WiFi v1.3 | 583 | 794 36% | 768 32% | 762 31% | 767 32% | 742 27% |
Load | 246 | 354 44% | 236 -4% | 249 1% | 282 15% | 223 -9% |
Pros
Cons
在某些方面,Galaxy Note 10比Note 9落后一步。Note10的电池比以前的要少,并且屏幕更小且分辨率更低。简而言之,三星似乎将Galaxy Note 10+视为Note 9的实际后代,而Note 10是Note系列的便宜入门级机型。
Note 10的摄像头比Galaxy Note 9更好,我们喜欢超广角。但是,我们在这里对Note 10的期望更高,主要是因为它的价格。自三星在相机技术上取得重大飞跃以来,已经过去了好几代,竞争也随之而来。 Note 10拥有一组不错且用途广泛的相机,但它们并没有像以前的Note和Galaxy S系列设备那样遥遥领先。
此外,Note 9仍保持许多不变的地方,新的快速充电技术,S笔手势和更快的连接性是从Note 9升级到Note 10的唯一硬件原因。Note 9所有者可能仍想切换到Note 10的设计,但我们更推荐往Note 10+升级,以节省金钱,除非您更喜欢小屏的智能手机;在所有其他方面,Note 10+都超过Note 10。
将Galaxy Note 10视为Note系列的入门级产品,与Note 10+相比,它提供了更精简的体验。 相比Note 9也没有太大变化,甚至有所退步。
更糟糕的是,三星删除了3.5毫米耳机孔和microSD卡读卡器。三星为Note 10+保留了microSD卡扩展,尽管它也没有耳机插孔。我们怀疑我们的评测机的Wi-Fi性能相对较差,后续三星将通过软件更新修复的异常。令人失望的是,三星在Note 10系列上无法做到这一点。
Galaxy Note 10是一款出色的智能手机,它比其他许多现代旗舰产品提供更全面的体验。三星为S-Pen带来的新功能可能会说服某些人购买Note 10,但由于成本控制,它缺少Note 9所能提供的物有所值。最终,Note 10会很难卖,特别是当三星先前将Note系列推销为其功能最丰富的智能手机时。
请注意,Galaxy Note 10是我们使用新的v7评分系统评分的首批智能手机之一。在未来几周内,我们将使用这种新方法重新评估以前的旗舰产品。
Samsung Galaxy Note10
- 09/03/2022 v7 (old)
Florian Schmitt