小米Note 10青春版智能手机评测:性价比的一击
Competing Devices
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
82.9 % v7 (old) | 10 / 2020 | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite SD 730G, Adreno 618 | 204 g | 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.47" | 2340x1080 | |
82.3 % v7 (old) | 07 / 2020 | Huawei P40 Lite 5G Kirin 820, Mali-G57 MP6 | 189 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
81.2 % v7 (old) | 10 / 2019 | Oppo Reno2 SD 730G, Adreno 618 | 189 g | 256 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
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 | |
83.3 % v7 (old) | 11 / 2019 | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 SD 730G, Adreno 618 | 208 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.47" | 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
Networking | |
iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
Oppo Reno2 | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Huawei P40 Lite 5G | |
iperf3 receive AX12 | |
Oppo Reno2 | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite | |
Huawei P40 Lite 5G | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 |
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.
Tageslicht-Szene 1Tageslicht-Szene 2WeitwinkelLowlight
|
Brightness Distribution: 95 %
Center on Battery: 605 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 0.84 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 1.3 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
100% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.211
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.5" | Huawei P40 Lite 5G IPS, 2400x1080, 6.5" | Oppo Reno2 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.5" | Samsung Galaxy A51 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.5" | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.5" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | -80% | -132% | -105% | -153% | |
Brightness middle | 605 | 466 -23% | 679 12% | 589 -3% | 625 3% |
Brightness | 608 | 457 -25% | 683 12% | 589 -3% | 607 0% |
Brightness Distribution | 95 | 91 -4% | 98 3% | 94 -1% | 89 -6% |
Black Level * | 0.61 | ||||
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 0.84 | 2.2 -162% | 3.5 -317% | 2.22 -164% | 4.38 -421% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 1.8 | 4.6 -156% | 6.8 -278% | 8.24 -358% | 6.83 -279% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1.3 | 2.7 -108% | 4.2 -223% | 2.6 -100% | 4.1 -215% |
Gamma | 2.211 100% | 2.24 98% | 2.27 97% | 2.111 104% | 2.251 98% |
CCT | 6310 103% | 6633 98% | 6532 100% | 6508 100% | 7251 90% |
Contrast | 764 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 176.1 Hz | ||
The display backlight flickers at 176.1 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 176.1 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 | ↗ 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 0.1 (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 | ||
10 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 5 ms rise | |
↘ 5 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 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 20 % 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) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite | |
Huawei P40 Lite 5G | |
Oppo Reno2 | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (8941 - 10200, n=7) | |
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite | |
Huawei P40 Lite 5G | |
Oppo Reno2 | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (7134 - 8683, n=7) |
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite | |
Huawei P40 Lite 5G | |
Oppo Reno2 | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (251673 - 275660, n=6) |
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 387, n=161, last 2 years) | |
Huawei P40 Lite 5G (Huawei Browser 10.0.2.331) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (45.8 - 50.6, n=6) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite (Chrome 83.0.4103.106) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 (Chrome 78) | |
Oppo Reno2 (Chrome 80) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Huawei P40 Lite 5G (Huawei Browser 10.0.2.331) | |
Oppo Reno2 (Chrome 80) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (79.2 - 87.7, n=6) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite (Chrome 83.0.4103.106) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 569, n=146, last 2 years) | |
Huawei P40 Lite 5G (Huawei Browser 10.0.2.331) | |
Oppo Reno2 (Chrome 80) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 (Chrome 78) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (40.4 - 44.2, n=6) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite (Chrome 83.0.4103.106) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) |
WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
Average of class Smartphone (38 - 347, n=79, last 2 years) | |
Huawei P40 Lite 5G (Huawei Browser 10.0.2.331) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 (Chrome 78) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite (Chrome 83.0.4103.106) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (66 - 77, n=6) | |
Oppo Reno2 (Chrome 80) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=203, last 2 years) | |
Huawei P40 Lite 5G (Huawei Browser 10.0.2.331) | |
Oppo Reno2 (Chrome 80) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (16197 - 17768, n=6) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 (Chrome 78) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite (Chrome 83.0.4103.106) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
Oppo Reno2 (Chrome 80) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite (Chrome 83.0.4103.106) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G (2770 - 3054, n=6) | |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 (Chrome 78) | |
Huawei P40 Lite 5G (Huawei Browser 10.0.2.331) | |
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=160, last 2 years) |
* ... smaller is better
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite | Huawei P40 Lite 5G | Oppo Reno2 | Samsung Galaxy A51 | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 | Average 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | 44% | -22% | -12% | -4% | -16% | 272% | |
Sequential Read 256KB | 501 | 905 81% | 469.3 -6% | 496.1 -1% | 480.5 -4% | 513 ? 2% | 1839 ? 267% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 213.2 | 188 -12% | 201.8 -5% | 184.9 -13% | 243.6 14% | 175.2 ? -18% | 1425 ? 568% |
Random Read 4KB | 134.6 | 146.1 9% | 144.2 7% | 110.8 -18% | 106.2 -21% | 117.1 ? -13% | 277 ? 106% |
Random Write 4KB | 125.8 | 249.7 98% | 22 -83% | 104.4 -17% | 118.9 -5% | 81.1 ? -36% | 309 ? 146% |
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 83.3 ? | 74.5 ? | 73 ? | 73.4 ? | |||
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 67.7 ? | 53.5 ? | 60.1 ? | 55.4 ? |
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 40.1 °C / 104 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 36.9 °C / 98 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 32.4 °C / 90 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 67.8% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 67.8% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 67.8% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (118.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 86% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 4% 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%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 69.6% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 69.6% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 69.6% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (119.9% 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 / 0.2 Watt |
Idle | 0.8 / 1.1 / 1.8 Watt |
Load |
3.7 / 6.1 Watt |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite 5260 mAh | Huawei P40 Lite 5G 4000 mAh | Oppo Reno2 4000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A51 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 5260 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | -24% | -7% | -23% | -28% | -28% | -34% | |
Idle Minimum * | 0.8 | 0.65 19% | 0.7 12% | 0.9 -13% | 0.7 12% | 0.84 ? -5% | 0.894 ? -12% |
Idle Average * | 1.1 | 2.25 -105% | 1.25 -14% | 1.7 -55% | 1.8 -64% | 1.953 ? -78% | 1.456 ? -32% |
Idle Maximum * | 1.8 | 2.29 -27% | 1.36 24% | 1.8 -0% | 2.2 -22% | 2.26 ? -26% | 1.616 ? 10% |
Load Average * | 3.7 | 3.7 -0% | 5.38 -45% | 5.2 -41% | 5.2 -41% | 4.51 ? -22% | 6.45 ? -74% |
Load Maximum * | 6.1 | 6.46 -6% | 6.71 -10% | 6.6 -8% | 7.5 -23% | 6.63 ? -9% | 9.8 ? -61% |
* ... smaller is better
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite 5260 mAh | Huawei P40 Lite 5G 4000 mAh | Oppo Reno2 4000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A51 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 5260 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | -4% | -24% | -28% | 4% | |
Reader / Idle | 2249 | 2533 13% | 1689 -25% | 2134 -5% | |
H.264 | 1370 | 1125 -18% | 846 -38% | 1423 4% | |
WiFi v1.3 | 1095 | 1047 -4% | 616 -44% | 698 -36% | 1127 3% |
Load | 337 | 185 -45% | 289 -14% | 387 15% |
Pros
Cons
总结——高于价位的体验
“很棒的相机,很小的妥协”,这总结了我们对小米Mi Note 10的评价。当以此为参考时,Mi Note 10 Lite的标准必须是:仍然有一台好相机,与Note 10相机相比,没有其他妥协。
精简版提供了高端替代产品出色的一切:出色的制造质量,明亮的AMOLED屏幕,超长的续航时间,快速充电,高速的八核SoC,以及非常好的性价比比
对于中档智能手机来说,小米Mi Note 10 Lite高于平均水平,只有其相机无法完全与高端Mi Note 10匹配。
Mi Note 10 Lite或Mi Note 10?尽管毫无疑问Mi Note 10的108-MP相机可以拍摄出更好的照片,但Mi Note 10的照片质量至少在光线充足的情况下几乎一样好。但是,精简版的价格要便宜得多,我们认为这对于价格敏感的买家来说是一个更好的选择。
Mi Note 10 Lite没有很多缺点。但是,由于内部存储无法使用microSD卡扩展,因此,潜在的购买者应仔细考虑是否选择64 GB或128 GB型号。此外,小米智能手机不防水,没有无线充电,并且手机表面摸起来感觉很滑。
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Lite
- 08/31/2022 v7 (old)
Manuel Masiero