Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
MagyarHuawei P Smart Pro智能手机评测：2020年最没有必要的智能手机
Huawei P smart Pro (P Series)
Processor
HiSilicon Kirin 710 8 x 2.2 GHz, Cortex-A73/-A53
Graphics adapter
ARM Mali-G51 MP4
Memory
6 GB
Display
6.59 inch 19.5:9, 2340 x 1080 pixel 391 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, TFT-LCD (LTPS), glossy: yes, 60 Hz
Storage
128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 128 GB
, 113 GB free
Weight
206 g, Power Supply: 56 g
Price
279 Euro
Links
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.
Comparison Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 76.7 % v7 (old) | 08 / 2020 | Huawei P smart Pro Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4 | 206 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.59" | 2340x1080 | |
| 81.3 % v7 (old) | 04 / 2020 | Huawei P40 Lite Kirin 810, Mali-G52 MP6 | 183 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.40" | 2310x1080 | |
| 82 % v7 (old) | 04 / 2020 | Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G SD 765G, Adreno 620 | 208 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
| 82.1 % v7 (old) | 02 / 2020 | Samsung Galaxy A71 SD 730, Adreno 618 | 179 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.70" | 2400x1080 | |
| 81.6 % v7 (old) | 09 / 2019 | Xiaomi Mi 9T SD 730, Adreno 618 | 191 g | 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.39" | 2340x1080 | |
| 75.7 % v7 (old) | 11 / 2019 | Honor 9X Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4 | 197 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.59" | 2340x1080 |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
| Huawei P40 Lite | |
| Samsung Galaxy A71 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
| Honor 9X | |
| Huawei P smart Pro | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A71 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
| Huawei P40 Lite | |
| Honor 9X | |
| Huawei P smart Pro | |
Huawei P smart Pro; iperf3 receive AX12; iperf 3.1.3: Ø45.4 (1-57)
Huawei P smart Pro; iperf3 transmit AX12; iperf 3.1.3: Ø51.5 (19-90)
7.3 ∆E
2.4 ∆E
3.5 ∆E
10.8 ∆E
3.9 ∆E
2.7 ∆E
4.3 ∆E
4.3 ∆E
5.6 ∆E
5.4 ∆E
3.2 ∆E
4.1 ∆E
4.2 ∆E
7.2 ∆E
6.5 ∆E
7 ∆E
4.4 ∆E
2.2 ∆E
6.1 ∆E
7.2 ∆E
5.1 ∆E
3.8 ∆E
5 ∆E
8.3 ∆E
21.1 ∆E
19.2 ∆E
22.4 ∆E
29.5 ∆E
25.3 ∆E
25.1 ∆E
23.2 ∆E
16.8 ∆E
16.4 ∆E
19.7 ∆E
22.4 ∆E
29 ∆E
19.5 ∆E
24.5 ∆E
14.6 ∆E
18.9 ∆E
20.7 ∆E
23.9 ∆E
12 ∆E
13.6 ∆E
20.9 ∆E
25.1 ∆E
19.9 ∆E
11.8 ∆E
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 487 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 458.8 cd/m² Minimum: 2.3 cd/m²Brightness Distribution: 87 %
Center on Battery: 480 cd/m²
Contrast: 1021:1 (Black: 0.47 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.7 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.93
ΔE Greyscale 7.8 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
99.4% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.27
| Huawei P smart Pro TFT-LCD (LTPS), 2340x1080, 6.6" | Huawei P40 Lite IPS, 2310x1080, 6.4" | Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G LCD IPS, 2400x1080, 6.7" | Samsung Galaxy A71 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.7" | Xiaomi Mi 9T AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | Honor 9X LCD IPS, 2340x1080, 6.6" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 17% | 37% | 41% | 42% | 2% | |
| Brightness middle | 480 | 478 0% | 658 37% | 629 31% | 589 23% | 494 3% |
| Brightness | 459 | 448 -2% | 643 40% | 646 41% | 589 28% | 483 5% |
| Brightness Distribution | 87 | 87 0% | 93 7% | 95 9% | 96 10% | 94 8% |
| Black Level * | 0.47 | 0.49 -4% | 0.49 -4% | 0.51 -9% | ||
| Contrast | 1021 | 976 -4% | 1343 32% | 969 -5% | ||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 5.7 | 3 47% | 1.8 68% | 2.7 53% | 2.5 56% | 5.74 -1% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 11.3 | 5.6 50% | 4.4 61% | 6 47% | 4.9 57% | 10.26 9% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 7.8 | 4.1 47% | 3.8 51% | 3 62% | 1.6 79% | 7.3 6% |
| Gamma | 2.27 97% | 2.26 97% | 2.22 99% | 2.1 105% | 2.24 98% | 2.086 105% |
| CCT | 8813 74% | 7282 89% | 6255 104% | 6340 103% | 6544 99% | 8572 76% |
* ... 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 not detected |  | ||
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 28 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 10 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 18 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. » 68 % 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 | ||
| 51.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 21.2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 30 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. » 87 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). | ||
Geekbench 5.5 | Geekbench 4.4 | PCMark for Android | 3DMark | GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | GFXBench 3.0 | GFXBench 3.1 | GFXBench | AnTuTu v8 | Basemark GPU 1.1 | VRMark | BaseMark OS II
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Huawei P smart Pro | |
| Huawei P40 Lite | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A71 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
| Honor 9X | |
| Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (7004 - 9854, n=13) | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| Huawei P smart Pro | |
| Huawei P40 Lite | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A71 | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
| Honor 9X | |
| Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (5803 - 7141, n=12) | |
| AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Huawei P smart Pro | |
| Huawei P40 Lite | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
| Samsung Galaxy A71 | |
| Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (185725 - 194475, n=2) | |
| Basemark GPU 1.1 | |
| 1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
| Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (7.38 - 8, n=2) | |
| Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
| Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (7.26 - 9.43, n=2) | |
| 1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
| Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (10.3 - 10.3, n=2) | |
| VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
| 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=162, last 2 years) | |
| Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G (Chrome 80) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A71 (Chrome 79.0.3945.136) | |
| Huawei P smart Pro (Chrome 74) | |
| Honor 9X (Chrome 78) | |
| Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (30 - 33, n=8) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G (Chrome 80) | |
| Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A71 (Chrome 79.0.3945.136) | |
| Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (47 - 55.1, n=10) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
| Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=148, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G (Chrome 80) | |
| Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
| Honor 9X (Chrome 78) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A71 (Chrome 79.0.3945.136) | |
| Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (30.4 - 33.9, n=6) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=82, last 2 years) | |
| Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G (Chrome 80) | |
| Huawei P smart Pro (Chrome 74) | |
| Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (52 - 69, n=11) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A71 (Chrome 79.0.3945.136) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=204, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G (Chrome 80) | |
| Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A71 (Chrome 79.0.3945.136) | |
| Huawei P smart Pro (Chrome 74) | |
| Honor 9X (Chrome 78) | |
| Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (9041 - 10544, n=13) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Huawei P smart Pro (Chrome 74) | |
| Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 (3999 - 4853, n=13) | |
| Honor 9X (Chrome 78) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A71 (Chrome 79.0.3945.136) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G (Chrome 80) | |
| Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
| Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=161, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Huawei P smart Pro | Huawei P40 Lite | Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | Samsung Galaxy A71 | Xiaomi Mi 9T | Honor 9X | Average 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 5% | -1% | -20% | -24% | -1% | 2% | 234% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 822 | 913 11% | 890 8% | 493 -40% | 492.7 -40% | 860 5% | 760 ? -8% | 1838 ? 124% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 195.4 | 181.7 -7% | 312.8 60% | 192.4 -2% | 179.2 -8% | 196.1 0% | 297 ? 52% | 1430 ? 632% |
| Random Read 4KB | 154.3 | 157.3 2% | 96.8 -37% | 112.3 -27% | 128.6 -17% | 142.3 -8% | 152.9 ? -1% | 278 ? 80% |
| Random Write 4KB | 156.3 | 175.4 12% | 101 -35% | 109.6 -30% | 107.8 -31% | 159.3 2% | 131.6 ? -16% | 310 ? 98% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 76.5 ? | 82.6 ? 8% | 73.4 ? -4% | 76.2 ? 0% | 76 ? -1% | |||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 69 ? | 70.6 ? 2% | 57.2 ? -17% | 67.1 ? -3% | 59.6 ? -14% |
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 38.4 °C / 101 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 39.4 °C / 103 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 36.4 °C / 98 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 33.6 °C / 92 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 39.4 °C / 103 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 36.4 °C / 98 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 33.6 °C / 92 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Huawei P smart Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 31% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.1% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 42% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 51% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 61% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 33% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.9% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (1.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 36% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 56% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 55% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 37% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Power Consumption
| Off / Standby |   0.01 / 0.05 Watt |
| Idle |  0.98 / 2.36 / 2.41 Watt |
| Load |
4.12 / 7.8 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Huawei P smart Pro 4000 mAh | Huawei P40 Lite 4200 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G 4500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A71 4500 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9T 4000 mAh | Honor 9X 4000 mAh | Average HiSilicon Kirin 710 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 16% | -6% | 21% | 45% | -57% | -3% | 0% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 0.98 | 0.79 19% | 0.66 33% | 0.63 36% | 0.54 45% | 2.3 -135% | 1.058 ? -8% | 0.895 ? 9% |
| Idle Average * | 2.36 | 2.14 9% | 2.37 -0% | 1.49 37% | 0.95 60% | 3 -27% | 2.2 ? 7% | 1.447 ? 39% |
| Idle Maximum * | 2.41 | 2.23 7% | 2.42 -0% | 1.51 37% | 1.08 55% | 4.2 -74% | 2.57 ? -7% | 1.608 ? 33% |
| Load Average * | 4.12 | 3.6 13% | 6.8 -65% | 4.62 -12% | 2.7 34% | 5.3 -29% | 4.61 ? -12% | 6.41 ? -56% |
| Load Maximum * | 7.8 | 5.17 34% | 7.5 4% | 7.11 9% | 5.4 31% | 9.4 -21% | 7.6 ? 3% | 9.61 ? -23% |
* ... smaller is better
| Huawei P smart Pro 4000 mAh | Huawei P40 Lite 4200 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G 4500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A71 4500 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9T 4000 mAh | Honor 9X 4000 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | ||||||
| WiFi v1.3 | 757 | 1007 33% | 802 6% | 815 8% | 991 31% | 832 10% |
Pros
+ 快速的UFS存储
+ 设计好
+ 双Sim + 3.5毫米音频端口
+ 续航时间长
Cons
- WLAN非常慢
- 没有NFC
- 慢速GPS
- 普通的液晶面板
- Android 9
- 只有几个LTE频段
- 手感差
- 没有超高清视频质量
- 旧的安全补丁
总结——少即是多……：
华为P smart Pro的价格必须大幅下降才能更具吸引力。
然后，问题就向人们展示了为什么用户不应该选择Honor 9X，因为与此同时它的价格下降了100多欧元（〜114美元），这使其比P smart Pro更加实惠。它还没有极慢的WLAN模块。
不幸的是，华为智能手机（仍然）不支持NFC，考虑到价格级别，这确实是一大问题。因此，它不能用于非接触式支付等功能。此外，P smart Pro只有Android 9，该版本已不再是最新版本，以及过时的安全修补程序。但是至少预装了Google服务（例如Play商店）。
那些正在寻找功能强大的中端智能手机的人应该看看我们对小米Redmi K30的评测。
Huawei P smart Pro
-
05/18/2020 v7 (old)
Marcus Herbrich
Smartphone - Weighted Average
Price comparison
