小米红米K30 5G智能手机评测:拥有120hz屏幕和5G的廉价手机
Device Comparison
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
82 % v7 (old) | 04 / 2020 | Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G SD 765G, Adreno 620 | 208 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
79.7 % v7 (old) | Realme XT SD 712, Adreno 616 | 183 g | 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.40" | 2340x1080 | ||
81.6 % v7 (old) | 09 / 2019 | Xiaomi Mi 9T SD 730, Adreno 618 | 191 g | 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.39" | 2340x1080 | |
78.6 % v7 (old) | 10 / 2019 | Nokia 7.2 SD 660, Adreno 512 | 180 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.30" | 2340x1080 | |
79.8 % v7 (old) | 01 / 2020 | Samsung Galaxy A51 Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3 | 172 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
79 % v7 (old) | 02 / 2020 | Huawei P30 Lite New Edition Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4 | 159 g | 256 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.15" | 2312x1080 |
» 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 K30 5G | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Nokia 7.2 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Realme XT | |
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition | |
iperf3 receive AX12 | |
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
Nokia 7.2 | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Realme XT | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition |
|
Brightness Distribution: 93 %
Center on Battery: 658 cd/m²
Contrast: 1343:1 (Black: 0.49 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.8 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 3.8 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
98.4% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.22
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G LCD IPS, 2400x1080, 6.7" | Realme XT Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | Xiaomi Mi 9T AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | Nokia 7.2 IPS, 2340x1080, 6.3" | Samsung Galaxy A51 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.5" | Huawei P30 Lite New Edition IPS, 2312x1080, 6.2" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | -64% | -1% | -47% | -16% | -40% | |
Brightness middle | 658 | 414 -37% | 589 -10% | 604 -8% | 589 -10% | 507 -23% |
Brightness | 643 | 414 -36% | 589 -8% | 593 -8% | 589 -8% | 481 -25% |
Brightness Distribution | 93 | 97 4% | 96 3% | 92 -1% | 94 1% | 88 -5% |
Black Level * | 0.49 | 0.4 18% | 0.38 22% | |||
Contrast | 1343 | 1510 12% | 1334 -1% | |||
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.8 | 4.4 -144% | 2.5 -39% | 5.1 -183% | 2.22 -23% | 4.72 -162% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 4.4 | 11.2 -155% | 4.9 -11% | 10.3 -134% | 8.24 -87% | 7.84 -78% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 3.8 | 4.3 -13% | 1.6 58% | 6.4 -68% | 2.6 32% | 5.5 -45% |
Gamma | 2.22 99% | 2.31 95% | 2.24 98% | 2.23 99% | 2.111 104% | 2.158 102% |
CCT | 6255 104% | 6532 100% | 6544 99% | 8149 80% | 6508 100% | 7596 86% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 2358 Hz | ≤ 43 % brightness setting | |
The display backlight flickers at 2358 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 43 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 2358 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 8734 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. |
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
32.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 17.2 ms rise | |
↘ 15.6 ms fall | ||
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 87 % 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 | ||
49.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 24 ms rise | |
↘ 25.2 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. » 84 % 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 4.0 | |
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G () | |
Average of class Smartphone (4227 - 8690, n=8, last 2 years) | |
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G () | |
Average of class Smartphone (7838 - 19281, n=8, last 2 years) | |
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G () | |
Average of class Smartphone (3187 - 7017, n=8, last 2 years) |
PCMark for Android | |
Work performance score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
Realme XT | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (8687 - 11041, n=16) | |
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
Realme XT | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Nokia 7.2 | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (7245 - 9989, n=17) |
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | |
T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
Realme XT | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Nokia 7.2 | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (43 - 86, n=15) | |
Average of class Smartphone (23 - 166, n=171, last 2 years) | |
1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
Realme XT | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Nokia 7.2 | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (48 - 97, n=15) | |
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 791, n=171, last 2 years) |
GFXBench 3.0 | |
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
Realme XT | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Nokia 7.2 | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (30 - 55, n=15) | |
Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 166, n=171, last 2 years) | |
1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
Realme XT | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Nokia 7.2 | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (31 - 56, n=15) | |
Average of class Smartphone (12 - 482, n=171, last 2 years) |
GFXBench 3.1 | |
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
Realme XT | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Nokia 7.2 | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (21 - 37, n=15) | |
Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 166, n=171, last 2 years) | |
1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
Realme XT | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Nokia 7.2 | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (22 - 38, n=15) | |
Average of class Smartphone (8.3 - 341, n=171, last 2 years) |
Basemark GPU 1.1 | |
1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G () | |
Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G () |
VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G () | |
Average of class Smartphone (2523 - 10071, n=6, last 2 years) |
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=163, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G (Chrome 80) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (15.8 - 60.5, n=12) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition (Chrome 79) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G (Chrome 80) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (10.8 - 96.9, n=11) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition (Chrome 79) | |
Realme XT (Chrome 79) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=149, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G (Chrome 80) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (9 - 54.9, n=9) | |
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition (Chrome 79) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) |
WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G (Chrome 80) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (20 - 101, n=13) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition (Chrome 79) | |
Realme XT (Chrome 79) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=205, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G (Chrome 80) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (3592 - 19143, n=14) | |
Realme XT (Chrome 79) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition (Chrome 79) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
Realme XT (Chrome 79) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
Huawei P30 Lite New Edition (Chrome 79) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G (2359 - 15230, n=14) | |
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G (Chrome 80) | |
Xiaomi Mi 9T (Chrome 75.0.3770.101) | |
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=162, last 2 years) |
* ... smaller is better
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G | Realme XT | Xiaomi Mi 9T | Nokia 7.2 | Samsung Galaxy A51 | Huawei P30 Lite New Edition | Average 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | -37% | -12% | -55% | -17% | 48% | 17% | 215% | |
Sequential Read 256KB | 890 | 483.8 -46% | 492.7 -45% | 290.8 -67% | 496.1 -44% | 800 -10% | 760 ? -15% | 1847 ? 108% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 312.8 | 173.7 -44% | 179.2 -43% | 161.4 -48% | 184.9 -41% | 391.1 25% | 297 ? -5% | 1436 ? 359% |
Random Read 4KB | 96.8 | 112.5 16% | 128.6 33% | 79.6 -18% | 110.8 14% | 198.7 105% | 152.9 ? 58% | 277 ? 186% |
Random Write 4KB | 101 | 25 -75% | 107.8 7% | 13.38 -87% | 104.4 3% | 171.6 70% | 131.6 ? 30% | 308 ? 205% |
PUBG Mobile
Asphalt 9: Legends
Dead Trigger 2
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 34 °C / 93 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 33.2 °C / 92 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.7 °C / 85 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
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
» 56% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 37% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Realme XT audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.1% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (3.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.6% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (2.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 20% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 71% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 41% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 51% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Off / Standby | 0.01 / 0.09 Watt |
Idle | 0.66 / 2.37 / 2.42 Watt |
Load |
6.8 / 7.5 Watt |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G 4500 mAh | Realme XT 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9T 4000 mAh | Nokia 7.2 3500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A51 4000 mAh | Huawei P30 Lite New Edition 3340 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | 38% | 44% | 1% | 11% | 1% | 9% | 2% | |
Idle Minimum * | 0.66 | 0.55 17% | 0.54 18% | 0.77 -17% | 0.9 -36% | 0.95 -44% | 0.965 ? -46% | 0.893 ? -35% |
Idle Average * | 2.37 | 1.39 41% | 0.95 60% | 2.32 2% | 1.7 28% | 2.1 11% | 1.899 ? 20% | 1.449 ? 39% |
Idle Maximum * | 2.42 | 1.44 40% | 1.08 55% | 2.41 -0% | 1.8 26% | 2.4 1% | 2.07 ? 14% | 1.608 ? 34% |
Load Average * | 6.8 | 2.97 56% | 2.7 60% | 4.44 35% | 5.2 24% | 4.2 38% | 3.98 ? 41% | 6.5 ? 4% |
Load Maximum * | 7.5 | 4.92 34% | 5.4 28% | 8.79 -17% | 6.6 12% | 7.7 -3% | 6.19 ? 17% | 9.87 ? -32% |
* ... smaller is better
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G 4500 mAh | Realme XT 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi 9T 4000 mAh | Nokia 7.2 3500 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A51 4000 mAh | Huawei P30 Lite New Edition 3340 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | -10% | 25% | -29% | 1% | -11% | |
Reader / Idle | 2083 | 2138 3% | 1689 -19% | 1359 -35% | ||
H.264 | 734 | 1208 65% | 846 15% | 802 9% | ||
WiFi v1.3 | 802 | 718 -10% | 991 24% | 570 -29% | 698 -13% | 719 -10% |
Load | 243 | 258 6% | 289 19% | 223 -8% |
Pros
Cons
Verdict - Xiaomi redefines the mid-range smartphone market once again
Redmi K30不仅看起来很棒,而且做工优良,价格约为300欧元(约324美元)。配备了以前仅为旗舰智能手机保留的5G功能和120 Hz屏幕。新款Sony IMX686相机传感器在日光下也表现出色,并在中档智能手机相机领域树立了标准。新的高通SoC也为当前游戏提供了足够的性能。
如果小米开始在欧洲销售与Redmi K30 5G相当的产品,那么目前约300欧元(约324美元)的价格会比小米的最新中档手机更好。
尽管Redmi K30 5G有很多功能,但我们的评测设备仍然遇到一些问题。忽略了在欧洲使用中国版本的限制,Redmi K30缺乏OLED面板可以提供的显示改进。实际上,这意味着Redmi K30的对比度比其同类产品差,并且它也具有IPS典型的光晕现象。该面板还使用PWM调光。我们评测设备的麦克风也无法说服我们,但第二台评测设备应足以确认这是否是本地化的问题。总体而言,Redmi K30 5G是一款出色的中端智能手机,我们希望很快能在欧洲上市。
Xiaomi Redmi K30 5G
- 02/17/2020 v7 (old)
Marcus Herbrich