Huawei P Smart 2020智能手机评测:顺手但过时
Comparison Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
76.6 % v7 (old) | 07 / 2020 | Huawei P Smart 2020 Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4 | 163 g | 128 GB eMMC Flash | 6.21" | 2340x1080 | |
75.7 % v7 (old) | 07 / 2020 | Nokia 5.3 SD 665, Adreno 610 | 185 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.55" | 1600x720 | |
80.7 % v7 (old) | 06 / 2020 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S SD 720G, Adreno 618 | 209 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
76.6 % v7 (old) | 06 / 2020 | Motorola Moto G8 SD 665, Adreno 610 | 188 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.40" | 1560x720 | |
84.9 % v6 (old) | 01 / 2019 | Huawei P Smart 2019 Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4 | 160 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.20" | 2340x1080 |
» 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
Size Comparison
Networking | |
iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
Huawei P Smart 2019 | |
Huawei P Smart 2020 | |
Nokia 5.3 | |
Motorola Moto G8 | |
iperf3 receive AX12 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
Huawei P Smart 2020 | |
Huawei P Smart 2019 | |
Nokia 5.3 | |
Motorola Moto G8 |
|
Brightness Distribution: 87 %
Center on Battery: 446 cd/m²
Contrast: 875:1 (Black: 0.51 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.22 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 6.8 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
99.5% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.43
Huawei P Smart 2020 IPS, 2340x1080, 6.2" | Nokia 5.3 IPS, 1600x720, 6.6" | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S IPS, 2400x1080, 6.7" | Motorola Moto G8 IPS, 1560x720, 6.4" | Huawei P Smart 2019 IPS, 2340x1080, 6.2" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | 1% | 22% | 35% | 34% | |
Brightness middle | 446 | 523 17% | 622 39% | 504 13% | 458 3% |
Brightness | 448 | 482 8% | 612 37% | 452 1% | 440 -2% |
Brightness Distribution | 87 | 86 -1% | 94 8% | 83 -5% | 85 -2% |
Black Level * | 0.51 | 0.46 10% | 0.56 -10% | 0.28 45% | 0.35 31% |
Contrast | 875 | 1137 30% | 1111 27% | 1800 106% | 1309 50% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 5.22 | 6.22 -19% | 3.98 24% | 3.84 26% | 1.4 73% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 8.66 | 10.56 -22% | 7.33 15% | 6.1 30% | 3.8 56% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 6.8 | 8 -18% | 4.5 34% | 2.7 60% | 2.4 65% |
Gamma | 2.43 91% | 2.226 99% | 2.206 100% | 2.235 98% | 2.22 99% |
CCT | 7956 82% | 8856 73% | 7361 88% | 7125 91% | 6235 104% |
Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 114.9 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 344 Hz | ≤ 10 % brightness setting | |
The display backlight flickers at 344 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 10 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 344 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 8746 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. |
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
26 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 15 ms rise | |
↘ 11 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 59 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (21 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
42 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 25 ms rise | |
↘ 17 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. » 64 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). |
VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value) | |
Huawei P Smart 2020 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (961 - 1146, n=3) | |
Average of class Smartphone (2523 - 10071, n=6, last 2 years) |
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=161, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (30 - 33, n=8) | |
Huawei P Smart 2020 (Chrome 81) | |
Motorola Moto G8 (Chrome 81) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
Huawei P Smart 2020 (Chrome 81) | |
Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (47 - 55.1, n=10) | |
Huawei P Smart 2019 (Chrome 70) | |
Motorola Moto G8 (Chrome 81) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=146, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chome 81) | |
Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (30.4 - 33.9, n=6) | |
Huawei P Smart 2020 (Chome 81) | |
Motorola Moto G8 (Chome 81) |
WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
Huawei P Smart 2019 (Chrome 70) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
Huawei P Smart 2020 (Chrome 81) | |
Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (52 - 69, n=11) | |
Motorola Moto G8 (Chrome 81) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=203, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
Huawei P Smart 2019 (Chrome 70) | |
Huawei P Smart 2020 (Chrome 81) | |
Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (9041 - 10544, n=13) | |
Motorola Moto G8 (Chrome 81) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
Motorola Moto G8 (Chrome 81) | |
Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (3999 - 4853, n=13) | |
Huawei P Smart 2020 (Chrome 81) | |
Huawei P Smart 2019 (Chrome 70) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=160, last 2 years) |
* ... smaller is better
Huawei P Smart 2020 | Nokia 5.3 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | Motorola Moto G8 | Huawei P Smart 2019 | Average 128 GB eMMC Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | 31% | 70% | 27% | 7% | 17% | 569% | |
Sequential Read 256KB | 282.1 | 299.5 6% | 496.6 76% | 301 7% | 288.3 2% | 283 ? 0% | 1839 ? 552% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 168.3 | 243.2 45% | 214.8 28% | 239 42% | 191.4 14% | 194.6 ? 16% | 1425 ? 747% |
Random Read 4KB | 41.2 | 109.1 165% | 137 233% | 57.3 39% | 45.66 11% | 82.7 ? 101% | 277 ? 572% |
Random Write 4KB | 61.1 | 45.2 -26% | 123.6 102% | 128.1 110% | 70.7 16% | 55.1 ? -10% | 309 ? 406% |
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 76.1 ? | 77.3 ? 2% | 74.5 ? -2% | 68.7 ? -10% | 76.2 ? 0% | 78.1 ? 3% | |
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 67 ? | 60.7 ? -9% | 54.9 ? -18% | 48.7 ? -27% | 66.9 ? 0% | 61.8 ? -8% |
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 44.3 °C / 112 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 45.3 °C / 114 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.5 °C / 83 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Huawei P Smart 2020 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (74.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.9% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (27.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 69% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 26% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 82% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 14% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 64.7% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 64.7% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 64.7% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (119.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 87% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 3% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 96% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Off / Standby | 0 / 0.1 Watt |
Idle | 1 / 2.1 / 2.5 Watt |
Load |
4.3 / 7.5 Watt |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Huawei P Smart 2020 3400 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S 5020 mAh | Motorola Moto G8 4000 mAh | Huawei P Smart 2019 3400 mAh | Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | -14% | -5% | 4% | -4% | -1% | |
Idle Minimum * | 1 | 1.5 -50% | 1.3 -30% | 0.84 16% | 1.058 ? -6% | 0.894 ? 11% |
Idle Average * | 2.1 | 2.1 -0% | 2 5% | 2.21 -5% | 2.2 ? -5% | 1.456 ? 31% |
Idle Maximum * | 2.5 | 2.5 -0% | 2.8 -12% | 2.23 11% | 2.57 ? -3% | 1.616 ? 35% |
Load Average * | 4.3 | 5.2 -21% | 3.9 9% | 4.2 2% | 4.61 ? -7% | 6.45 ? -50% |
Load Maximum * | 7.5 | 7.5 -0% | 7.2 4% | 7.86 -5% | 7.6 ? -1% | 9.8 ? -31% |
* ... smaller is better
Huawei P Smart 2020 3400 mAh | Nokia 5.3 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S 5020 mAh | Motorola Moto G8 4000 mAh | Huawei P Smart 2019 3400 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | 67% | 91% | 64% | -3% | |
Reader / Idle | 1325 | 2263 71% | 1953 47% | 1293 -2% | |
H.264 | 489 | 1269 160% | 1048 114% | 464 -5% | |
WiFi v1.3 | 523 | 876 67% | 1187 127% | 988 89% | 506 -3% |
Load | 264 | 279 6% | 276 5% | 257 -3% |
Pros
Cons
总结——加量也加价
华为的P Smart系列很受欢迎。这是可以理解的,因为到目前为止该系列提供了很多性价比。这也使P Smart 2020仍可以感觉到跟得上时代,即使与以前的版本相比变化不大。
但是,已经出现了老化的最初迹象:尽管相机仍然可以拍摄出清晰的照片,但是它却缺乏变焦功能,这是目前价格范围内的许多设备所提供的。您也找不到诸如USB-C端口,VoLTE或具有更多频段的更快LTE之类的现代功能。2020年推出的智能手机还搭载Android 9,还不清楚会不会有Android 10,这也值得三思。
根据用户的不同,小电池可能是好处或者坏处。那些想摆脱对智能手机的日常充电的人不会喜欢,除非是轻度使用。另一方面,小巧的电池可加快充电速度并减轻重量。
对于那些喜欢纤薄轻巧的手机人,我们仍然可以推荐华为P Smart 2020。但是那些重视电池续航时间和现代软件的人应该考虑其他型号。
定位相当准确,WLAN相当快,性能合适,并且128 GB的存储对于智能手机也是一个有点。
但是,华为P Smart 2020还存在另一个问题:它和P Smart 2019基本上是同一款智能手机,但存储空间略少,价格更少。因此,如果您要省钱,则可能要购买19款。尽管从中端机型来看,后继产品仍然是一款不错的智能手机,但在该价格范围内,它的感觉已不再像其他机型那样跟得上时代。
Huawei P Smart 2020
- 05/30/2020 v7 (old)
Florian Schmitt