三星 Galaxy XCover 4 (SM-G390F) 智能手机简短评测

Name: Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Brand: Samsung

坚实，时尚？ 三星旨在提供一个能恶劣环境下使用，同时散发优雅气息的智能手机。事实上，该手机性能强劲，而不是太笨重。我们测验了其在日常生活中的适用性是否同样令人印象深刻。

Florian Wimmer, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, ✓ Stefanie Voigt (translated by Kangfei Zheng), Published 06/28/2017 🇺🇸 🇩🇪 ...

Touchscreen Smartphone Android ARM

Test device courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de

Download your licensed rating image as PNG / SVG

Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 (Galaxy XCover Series)

Processor

Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad 4 x 1.4 GHz, Cortex-A53

Graphics adapter

ARM Mali-T720

Memory

2048 MB

Display

5.00 inch 16:9, 1280 x 720 pixel 294 PPI, 电容式触控屏, IPS, glossy: yes

Storage

16 GB eMMC Flash, 16 GB

, 10.1 GB free

Connections

1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5-mm 耳机接口, Card Reader: micro-SD max. 256 GB, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: position sensor, accelerometer, proximity sensor

Networking

802.11a/b/g/n (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/), Bluetooth 4.2, GSM (850/900/1800/1900), UMTS (850/900/1900/2100), LTE (B1/B3/B5/B7/B8/B20/B38/B40); LTE Cat.4 (max. 150Mbps download / max. 50Mbps upload); SAR rate: 0.611W/kg (head), 1.24W/kg (body), LTE, GPS

Size

height x width x depth (in mm): 9.7 x 146.2 x 73.3

Battery

10.6 Wh, 2800 mAh Lithium-Ion, removeable, Talk time 3G (according to manufacturer): 17 h

Operating System

Android 7.0 Nougat

Camera

Primary Camera: 13 MPix f/1.9, contrast AF, LED flash
Secondary Camera: 5 MPix f/2.2

Additional features

Speakers: speaker on the right edge, Keyboard: 虚拟键盘, charger, USB cable, S Health, Knox (secure container), Samsung Notes, 24 Months Warranty, IP68 certified, MIL-STD-810G certified, fanless, ruggedized

Weight

172 g, Power Supply: 52 g

Price

249 Euro

Links

Samsung notebook section

Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

see all specifications

Size Comparison

AGM A8 Motorola Moto X Force Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 Huawei P10 Lite Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3 DIN A6 ❌

Networking
iperf3 transmit AX12
Huawei P10 Lite Mali-T830 MP2, Kirin 658, 32 GB eMMC Flash	232 MBit/s +512%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 Mali-T720, Exynos 7570, 16 GB eMMC Flash	37.9 MBit/s
AGM A8 Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 32 GB eMMC Flash	18.4 MBit/s -51%
iperf3 receive AX12
Huawei P10 Lite Mali-T830 MP2, Kirin 658, 32 GB eMMC Flash	229 MBit/s +365%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 Mali-T720, Exynos 7570, 16 GB eMMC Flash	49.2 MBit/s
AGM A8 Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 32 GB eMMC Flash	26.9 MBit/s -45%

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.

Scene 1 Scene 2 Scene 3

click to load images

Samsung Galaxy XCover 4

Samsung Galaxy S8

LG G6

Canon EOS 70D

click to load images

Samsung Galaxy XCover 4

Samsung Galaxy S8

LG G6

Canon EOS 70D

click to load images

Samsung Galaxy XCover 4

Samsung Galaxy S8

LG G6

Canon EOS 70D


430 cd/m²	452 cd/m²	462 cd/m²
421 cd/m²	445 cd/m²	453 cd/m²
407 cd/m²	416 cd/m²	445 cd/m²

Distribution of brightness

tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2

Maximum: 462 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 436.8 cd/m² Minimum: 3.71 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 88 %
Center on Battery: 445 cd/m²
Contrast: 664:1 (Black: 0.67 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.5 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.93
ΔE Greyscale 7.2 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
Gamma: 2.53

	Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 IPS, 1280x720, 5"	Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3 IPS, 800x480, 4.5"	Huawei P10 Lite IPS, 1920x1080, 5.2"	Motorola Moto X Force AMOLED, 2560x1440, 5.4"	AGM A8 IPS, 1280x720, 5"
Screen		14%	31%	18%	41%
Brightness middle	445	452 2%	507 14%	337 -24%	356 -20%
Brightness	437	436 0%	509 16%	336 -23%	343 -22%
Brightness Distribution	88	91 3%	95 8%	91 3%	93 6%
Black Level *	0.67	0.53 21%	0.36 46%		0.21 69%
Contrast	664	853 28%	1408 112%		1695 155%
Colorchecker dE 2000 *	6.5	5.71 12%	5.1 22%	3.99 39%	3.7 43%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *	10.6		9 15%	7.07 33%	8.3 22%
Greyscale dE 2000 *	7.2	5.02 30%	6.1 15%	1.66 77%	1.9 74%
Gamma	2.53 ^87%	2.15 ^102%	2.28 ^96%	2.32 ^95%	2.5 ^88%
CCT	8274 ^79%	7441 ^87%	8143 ^80%	6584 ^99%	6412 ^101%

* ... smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

ℹ

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.

Screen flickering / PWM detected

20400 Hz

≤ 90 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 20400 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 90 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 20400 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8774 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured.

Display Response Times

ℹ

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.

↔ Response Time Black to White
16 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 7 ms rise
16 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 9 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 33 % 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
36 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 17 ms rise
36 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 19 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 46 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms).

AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	35379 Points
Huawei P10 Lite	60438 Points +71%
Motorola Moto X Force	89911 Points +154%
AGM A8	26753 Points -24%

3DMark
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	4661 Points
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3	3093 Points -34%
Huawei P10 Lite	11135 Points +139%
Motorola Moto X Force	25751 Points +452%
AGM A8	4372 Points -6%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	3985 Points
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3	2591 Points -35%
Huawei P10 Lite	10603 Points +166%
Motorola Moto X Force	38394 Points +863%
AGM A8	3808 Points -4%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	11459 Points
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3	9613 Points -16%
Huawei P10 Lite	13510 Points +18%
Motorola Moto X Force	11963 Points +4%
AGM A8	9082 Points -21%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	193 Points
Huawei P10 Lite	610 Points +216%
Motorola Moto X Force	2413 Points +1150%
AGM A8	54 Points -72%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	157 Points
Huawei P10 Lite	520 Points +231%
Motorola Moto X Force	3226 Points +1955%
AGM A8	43 Points -73%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	955 Points
Huawei P10 Lite	1537 Points +61%
Motorola Moto X Force	1282 Points +34%
AGM A8	739 Points -23%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	107 Points
Huawei P10 Lite	396 Points +270%
Motorola Moto X Force	1849 Points +1628%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	85 Points
Huawei P10 Lite	326 Points +284%
Motorola Moto X Force	2067 Points +2332%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	952 Points
Huawei P10 Lite	1592 Points +67%
Motorola Moto X Force	1351 Points +42%

GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	11 fps
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3	15.1 fps +37%
Huawei P10 Lite	18 fps +64%
Motorola Moto X Force	42 fps +282%
AGM A8	9.5 fps -14%
1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	6.8 fps
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3	5.4 fps -21%
Huawei P10 Lite	17 fps +150%
Motorola Moto X Force	58 fps +753%
AGM A8	2.8 fps -59%

GFXBench 3.0
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	5.4 fps
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3	2.3 fps -57%
Huawei P10 Lite	7.7 fps +43%
Motorola Moto X Force	17 fps +215%
AGM A8	4 fps -26%
1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	2.6 fps
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3	0.8 fps -69%
Huawei P10 Lite	7.2 fps +177%
Motorola Moto X Force	27 fps +938%
AGM A8	1.8 fps -31%

GFXBench 3.1
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	3.9 fps
Huawei P10 Lite	4.8 fps +23%
Motorola Moto X Force	12 fps +208%
1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	1.6 fps
Huawei P10 Lite	4.2 fps +163%
Motorola Moto X Force	20 fps +1150%

PCMark for Android
Work performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	4508 Points
Huawei P10 Lite	5794 Points +29%
Motorola Moto X Force	5365 Points +19%
AGM A8	2920 Points -35%
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	3446 Points
Huawei P10 Lite	4464 Points +30%
AGM A8	3701 Points +7%

BaseMark OS II
Overall (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	706 Points
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3	443 Points -37%
Huawei P10 Lite	1229 Points +74%
Motorola Moto X Force	1774 Points +151%
AGM A8	622 Points -12%
System (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	1396 Points
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3	1103 Points -21%
Huawei P10 Lite	2642 Points +89%
Motorola Moto X Force	2878 Points +106%
AGM A8	1161 Points -17%
Memory (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	1066 Points
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3	366 Points -66%
Huawei P10 Lite	1592 Points +49%
Motorola Moto X Force	1085 Points +2%
AGM A8	757 Points -29%
Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	253 Points
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3	129 Points -49%
Huawei P10 Lite	829 Points +228%
Motorola Moto X Force	3376 Points +1234%
AGM A8	306 Points +21%
Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	661 Points
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3	744 Points +13%
Huawei P10 Lite	654 Points -1%
Motorola Moto X Force	939 Points +42%
AGM A8	557 Points -16%

Geekbench 4.4
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	629 Points
Huawei P10 Lite	913 Points +45%
AGM A8	515 Points -18%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	1855 Points
Huawei P10 Lite	3460 Points +87%
AGM A8	1383 Points -25%

Legend

Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, ARM Mali-T720, 16 GB eMMC Flash

Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3 Marvell Armada PXA1908, Vivante GC7000UL, 8 GB eMMC Flash

Huawei P10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 658, ARM Mali-T830 MP2, 32 GB eMMC Flash

Motorola Moto X Force Qualcomm Snapdragon 810 MSM8994, Qualcomm Adreno 430, 32 GB eMMC Flash

AGM A8 Qualcomm Snapdragon 410 MSM8916, Qualcomm Adreno 306, 32 GB eMMC Flash

Mozilla Kraken 1.1 | Octane V2 | JetStream 1.1 | WebXPRT 2015

Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	11130 ms *
Huawei P10 Lite	8591 ms * +23%
Motorola Moto X Force	4080 ms * +63%
AGM A8	12248 ms * -10%

Octane V2 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	3133 Points
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3	2059 Points -34%
Huawei P10 Lite	4589 Points +46%
Motorola Moto X Force	8699 Points +178%
AGM A8	2733 Points -13%

JetStream 1.1 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	20.99 Points
Huawei P10 Lite	30.05 Points +43%
Motorola Moto X Force	49.37 Points +135%
AGM A8	16.9 Points -19%

WebXPRT 2015 - Overall (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	61 Points
Huawei P10 Lite	62 Points +2%
Motorola Moto X Force	103 Points +69%

* ... smaller is better

AndroBench 3-5
Sequential Read 256KB (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	181.6 MB/s
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3	113.5 MB/s -37%
Huawei P10 Lite	264.3 MB/s +46%
Motorola Moto X Force	252 MB/s +39%
AGM A8	140.7 MB/s -23%
Sequential Write 256KB (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	73.6 MB/s
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3	25.6 MB/s -65%
Huawei P10 Lite	129.2 MB/s +76%
Motorola Moto X Force	47.99 MB/s -35%
AGM A8	69.5 MB/s -6%
Random Read 4KB (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	21.8 MB/s
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3	15.8 MB/s -28%
Huawei P10 Lite	72.5 MB/s +233%
Motorola Moto X Force	22.55 MB/s +3%
AGM A8	11.44 MB/s -48%
Random Write 4KB (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	11.9 MB/s
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3	4 MB/s -66%
Huawei P10 Lite	19.36 MB/s +63%
Motorola Moto X Force	19.78 MB/s +66%
AGM A8	3.73 MB/s -69%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	69 MB/s
Huawei P10 Lite	53.4 MB/s -23%
Motorola Moto X Force	79 MB/s +14%
AGM A8	22.01 MB/s -68%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4	55.7 MB/s
Huawei P10 Lite	32.7 MB/s -41%
Motorola Moto X Force	46.96 MB/s -16%
AGM A8	20.46 MB/s -63%

Asphalt 8: Airborne
	Settings	Value
	high	23 fps
	very low	30 fps

... in comparison

Dead Trigger 2
	Settings	Value
	high	30 fps

... in comparison

Max. Load

Idle


36.4 °C	36.6 °C	34.8 °C
38.2 °C	36.6 °C	35.7 °C
37.9 °C	37 °C	36.2 °C

Maximum: 38.2 °C
Average: 36.6 °C


36.2 °C	36.6 °C	36.6 °C
35.8 °C	37.4 °C	37.3 °C
35.6 °C	37.5 °C	37.3 °C

Maximum: 37.5 °C
Average: 36.7 °C

Power Supply (max.) 30.6 °C | Room Temperature 21.5 °C | Voltcraft IR-260

(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 36.6 °C / 98 F, compared to the average of 32.8 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 38.2 °C / 101 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 37.5 °C / 100 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 31.9 °C / 89 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.

Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 15.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 7.4% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 52% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 40% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 70% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 24% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

AGM A8 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 30.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 10% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 9.1% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (32.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 81% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 17% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 91% of all tested devices were better, 2% similar, 8% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Power Consumption

Off / Standby	0.006 / 0.1 Watt
Idle	0.56 / 1.57 / 1.68 Watt
Load	4.6 / 5.92 Watt


Key: min: , med: , max: Metrahit Energy

	Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 2800 mAh	Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3 mAh	Huawei P10 Lite 3000 mAh	Motorola Moto X Force 3760 mAh	AGM A8 4050 mAh
Power Consumption		24%	7%	-26%	-23%
Idle Minimum *	0.56	0.6 -7%	0.38 32%	0.96 -71%	0.86 -54%
Idle Average *	1.57	1.2 24%	1.87 -19%	1.35 14%	1.97 -25%
Idle Maximum *	1.68	1.3 23%	1.92 -14%	1.4 17%	2.04 -21%
Load Average *	4.6	2.6 43%	3.82 17%	6.11 -33%	4.86 -6%
Load Maximum *	5.92	3.6 39%	4.9 17%	9.43 -59%	6.43 -9%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Runtime

Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)		23h 08min
WiFi Websurfing		11h 08min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p		11h 21min
Load (maximum brightness)		3h 25min

	Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 2800 mAh	Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3 mAh	Huawei P10 Lite 3000 mAh	Motorola Moto X Force 3760 mAh	AGM A8 4050 mAh
Battery Runtime		-18%	7%	11%	-2%
Reader / Idle	1388	1002 -28%	1410 2%	1610 16%
H.264	681	678 0%	586 -14%	710 4%
WiFi v1.3	668	503 -25%	665 0%	426 -36%	654 -2%
Load	205	166 -19%	286 40%	330 61%

Pros

+ 坚实低调的机身

+ 各种硬件按钮

+ 防水防尘

+ 非常准确的GPS模块

+ 电池续航好

+ 明亮的屏幕

+ 可拆卸电池

+ 手套模式

+ UI有许多选项

+ 安卓7.0

Cons

- 低内存配置

- 语音质量差

- 前置摄像头质量一般

- 相对较高的黑色值

- 显示屏蓝色调

- 中庸的游戏性能

In review: Samsung Galaxy XCover 4. Review sample courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de

即使三星的Galaxy XCover 4并没有像想象里那么坚固，但却比许多其他非常脆弱的智能手机获得了更好的保护。坚固的塑料外壳看起来不笨重，它甚至可以更换电池。防水防尘能力与前代相比有所增强，扬声器现在在手机潮湿时仍然无可挑剔。在水中使用后，我们在后盖下方发现一滴水。因此，该设备在这里需要单独地干燥处理。

该设备的存储容量可以更大些，但其应用广泛的操作系统和相当有用的主要摄像机还是让人折服的。输入选项多样，屏幕适当，性能足够日常使用。电池续航也符合良好的整体印象。尽管如此，我们并不喜欢该手机的音质和游戏性能。

像它的前身一样，Galaxy XCover 4并不适合极端的情况下使用，但是足以应对日常生活的不确定性因素。坚硬外壳下，隐藏着一个坚实的，中低档智能手机。

需要能在极端情况下使用的高端手机用户，将不得不在其他专业设备中选择。三星提供了一个坚实的设备，适用于稍微恶劣的日常环境，如徒步旅行或偶尔访问一个多尘的施工现场。由于该设备相对较便宜，定位系统很优秀，因此非常适合于这些情况。

注：本文是基于完整评测的缩减版本，阅读完整的英文评测，请点击这里。

Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 - 2017-06-12 06/12/2017 v6 ^(old)
Florian Wimmer

Chassis

90%

Keyboard

69 / 75 → 92%

Pointing Device

92%

Connectivity

37 / 60 → 62%

Weight

90%

Battery

93%

Display

82%

Games Performance

7 / 63 → 11%

Application Performance

40 / 70 → 58%

Temperature

89%

Noise

100%

Audio

49 / 91 → 54%

Camera

66%

Average

70%

81%

Smartphone - Weighted Average

Price comparison

Please share our article, every link counts!

> Notebookcheck中文版（NBC中国） > 评测 > 三星 Galaxy XCover 4 (SM-G390F) 智能手机简短评测

Florian Wimmer, 2017-06-28 (Update: 2017-08- 1)

Size Comparison

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

Display Response Times

Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 audio analysis

AGM A8 audio analysis

Pros

Cons

More articles related to this device

Price comparison