Oppo Pad Air平板电脑评测 - 良好的扬声器和充足的电池
潜在的竞争对手比较
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Height | Size | Resolution | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 83.1 % v7 (old) | 01 / 2023 | Oppo Pad Air SD 680, Adreno 610 | 440 g | 6.9 mm | 10.36" | 2000x1200 | |
| 81.2 % v7 (old) | 01 / 2023 | Huawei MatePad SE SD 680, Adreno 610 | 440 g | 7.9 mm | 10.40" | 2000x1200 | |
| 81.7 % v7 (old) | 11 / 2022 | Honor Pad 8 SD 680, Adreno 610 | 520 g | 6.9 mm | 12.00" | 2000x1200 | |
| 84.6 % v7 (old) | 12 / 2022 | Xiaomi Redmi Pad Helio G99, Mali-G57 MP2 | 445 g | 7.05 mm | 10.61" | 2000x1200 | |
| 81 % v7 (old) | 02 / 2022 | Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 T618, Mali-G52 MP2 | 508 g | 6.9 mm | 10.50" | 1920x1200 |
外壳和功能 - 纤细和轻巧
通过Pad Air，Oppo带来了一款拥有10.36英寸屏幕的轻型平板电脑，它不是最便宜的设备之一，但它看起来也非常别致。
一条塑料条横跨背面的外壳边缘，由于其图案让人想起树皮或波浪。一方面，这条塑料条确保了更好的第一印象，因为背面的其他部分是由金属制成的。另一方面，它的光泽效果与外壳的其他部分不同，因此是一个视觉亮点。
这款平板电脑相当轻，只有440克，而且轮廓非常纤细，只有6.9毫米。不过，这个棱角分明的外壳拿在手里感觉很好。屏幕的边缘是通常的大小，所以你可以握住平板电脑而不会无意中触发触摸屏上的指令。
稳定性很好，但平板电脑在某些地方会被压住并轻微扭曲。
奥普提供了两种存储变体的平板电脑。
- 4GB内存/64GB大容量存储。300欧元
- 4GB内存/128GB大容量存储。350欧元
没有LTE变体，也没有用于移动支付的NFC模块。
然而，存储空间可以通过microSD插槽扩展。在我们使用Angelbird V60参考卡的基准测试中，读取率反复下降，但该阅读器在其他方面提供了良好的传输率。
| SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 (Angelbird AV Pro V60) | |
| Oppo Pad Air (Angelbird V60) | |
| Huawei MatePad SE (Angelbird V60) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Pad (Angelbird AV Pro V60) | |
Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)
通讯、软件和操作 - 人脸识别的问题
由于有了WiFi 5，Oppo Pad Air可以相当迅速地浏览WLAN。然而，在我们用参考路由器华硕ROG Rapture AXE11000进行的测试中，我们注意到该平板电脑在接收方向上比竞争对手要慢一些，而传输方面的问题较少。
WLAN模块的接收在路由器附近是完美的，在10米的距离和穿过3堵墙时，它的信号强度仍然是50%。互联网页面在那里的加载速度也相当快，所以你不必为Pad Air在家里到处安装WLAN中继器。
Oppo的ColorOS 12.1是基于Android 12。在测试时，这款平板电脑仍然合理地更新了2022年12月的安全补丁。奥普已经承诺了很长时间的更新，但只针对某些型号。Pad Air将被更新多长时间还有待观察。至少计划在2013年上半年更新到Android 13。
由于120赫兹，触摸屏的反应非常灵敏，可以精确地使用到角落。
该平板电脑没有用于生物识别解锁的指纹传感器。然而，可以使用面部识别。这并不是很好的工作。你必须把你的脸靠近平板电脑，但即使这样也不能可靠地识别。由于缺乏额外的硬件，这种方法也不是很安全。
| Networking | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Pad | |
| Honor Pad 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 | |
| Huawei MatePad SE | |
| Oppo Pad Air | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Pad | |
| Huawei MatePad SE | |
| Honor Pad 8 | |
| Oppo Pad Air | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 | |
照相机 - 你可以拍摄照片...
与大多数平板电脑一样，相机设备也相当简单。背面有一个海力士的800万像素传感器。它拍摄的照片有些暗淡，不是很详细，在黑暗或非常明亮的地方也很明显缺乏动态。 在放大的情况下，由于镜头的保护玻璃不均匀，图片质量很差。
在光线很弱、对比度很高的情况下，效果也相当平庸；至少你可以在照片中认出一些东西。然而，许多地方看起来像素很高，动态效果也很不理想。
视频可以在1080p和最多30帧的情况下录制。自动对焦在这里有延迟，而且在光线较弱的情况下颜色也会丢失。
前置摄像头的分辨率为500万像素。在光线良好的情况下，它可以拍出可用的自拍，但它显示了放大后显示的细节有多粗糙。在黑暗区域也缺乏细节。
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.
Main cameraMain cameraLow Light
显示 - 不同的亮度
Oppo指定360尼特为Pad Air显示屏的最大亮度。我们的测量结果略低于此，Oppo Pad Air也是对比领域中屏幕最暗的平板电脑。亮度足够在客厅里使用，但在户外很快就会出现反光问题。
作为回报，该面板的最大帧率为120赫兹，这是所有竞争对手都无法声称的。因此，滚动更顺畅，平板电脑的反应能力也更强。
对比度相当低，不应期待Oppo Pad Air的显示屏有明亮的色彩。在详细的测量中，肉眼也可以看到明亮的灰度中的偏蓝。特别是明亮的橙色调强烈地偏离了色彩空间的最佳状态。
在我们的测量中，我们没有检测到显示器的PWM。
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 85 %
Center on Battery: 352 cd/m²
Contrast: 782:1 (Black: 0.45 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.79 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 5.5 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
97.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.118
| Oppo Pad Air IPS, 2000x1200, 10.4" | Huawei MatePad SE IPS, 2000x1200, 10.4" | Honor Pad 8 IPS, 2000x1200, 12" | Xiaomi Redmi Pad IPS, 2000x1200, 10.6" | Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 TFT-LCD, 1920x1200, 10.5" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 23% | 11% | 37% | -20% | |
| Brightness middle | 352 | 398 13% | 379 8% | 418 19% | 368 5% |
| Brightness | 339 | 368 9% | 382 13% | 402 19% | 346 2% |
| Brightness Distribution | 85 | 87 2% | 84 -1% | 90 6% | 91 7% |
| Black Level * | 0.45 | 0.46 -2% | 0.3 33% | 0.28 38% | 0.61 -36% |
| Contrast | 782 | 865 11% | 1263 62% | 1493 91% | 603 -23% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.79 | 2.17 55% | 4.76 1% | 2.3 52% | 6.9 -44% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 8.65 | 4.32 50% | 9.25 -7% | 5.4 38% | 11.4 -32% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 5.5 | 3.1 44% | 6.7 -22% | 3.7 33% | 7.7 -40% |
| Gamma | 2.118 104% | 2.214 99% | 2.234 98% | 2.21 100% | 2.16 102% |
| CCT | 7889 82% | 7245 90% | 8468 77% | 6595 99% | 8547 76% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| 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 8706 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 25.7 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 14.4 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 11.3 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 (20.9 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 42.7 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 23.7 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 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. » 68 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). | ||
性能、排放和电池寿命 - 良好的运行时间
随着 高通Snapdragon 680oppo公司选择了一种经常用于价格较低的平板电脑的SoC：例如 华为MatePad SE或 Honor Pad 8.
它为大部分流畅的系统操作提供了足够的性能，但你不应该期待更高的要求，多任务处理也可能是一个问题，这取决于使用的应用程序。 小米的红米Pad提供了相当多的动力。
尽管有120赫兹的屏幕，但要求高的游戏玩家可能不得不另寻他处；SoC的功率不足以满足许多移动游戏的高设置。
OPPO可以在内存方面得分：制造商安装了UFS 2.2闪存，而不是缓慢的eMMC，从而使华为和三星的平板电脑退居次席。这缩短了加载时间，加快了数据传输速度。
我们注意到，在温度测量中，即使在较长的负载下，平板电脑也几乎没有升温。此外，即使在多次基准运行后，SoC仍然保持其性能。
我们喜欢扬声器的声音，它不会过度膨胀，还集成了较低的中音。那些仍然喜欢连接耳机或外部扬声器的人可以通过USB-C或蓝牙来实现。无线编解码器是aptX、aptX HD、SBC、AAC和LDAC。
在电池寿命方面，这款轻便的平板电脑以其相当高容量的电池而令人信服，在我们的WLAN测试中，它的电池寿命达到13:43小时。小米 小米红米Pad仍然可以做得更好，但Oppo Pad Air总体上非常适用于日常使用，在不插电的情况下绝对可以维持一天的高强度使用。
如果你确实要给它充电，你可以用高达18瓦的功率来做。电池需要大约3个小时，直到再次充满电。
PCMark for Android: Work 3.0
3DMark: Wild Life Score | Wild Life Unlimited Score | Wild Life Extreme | Wild Life Extreme Unlimited | 2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited | 2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics | 2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics | 2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited | 2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics | 2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics | 2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) | 2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics | 2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics
GFXBench: 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen | on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen | 2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen | on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen | 3840x2160 4K Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen
Octane V2: Total Score
| Geekbench 5.5 / Single-Core | |
| Average of class Tablet (140 - 1887, n=71, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Pad | |
| Oppo Pad Air | |
| Honor Pad 8 | |
| Huawei MatePad SE | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (323 - 386, n=15) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 | |
| Geekbench 5.5 / Multi-Core | |
| Average of class Tablet (312 - 8624, n=71, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Pad | |
| Huawei MatePad SE | |
| Oppo Pad Air | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (1287 - 1738, n=15) | |
| Honor Pad 8 | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 | |
| PCMark for Android / Work 3.0 | |
| Average of class Tablet (3195 - 20841, n=73, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Pad | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 | |
| Honor Pad 8 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (4535 - 8730, n=15) | |
| Oppo Pad Air | |
| Huawei MatePad SE | |
| 3DMark / Wild Life Score | |
| Average of class Tablet (286 - 7933, n=60, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Pad | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (437 - 602, n=15) | |
| Oppo Pad Air | |
| Honor Pad 8 | |
| Huawei MatePad SE | |
| 3DMark / Wild Life Unlimited Score | |
| Average of class Tablet (289 - 32525, n=73, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Pad | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (417 - 585, n=15) | |
| Oppo Pad Air | |
| Honor Pad 8 | |
| Huawei MatePad SE | |
| 3DMark / Wild Life Extreme | |
| Average of class Tablet (75 - 8689, n=74, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Pad | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 | |
| Oppo Pad Air | |
| Honor Pad 8 | |
| Huawei MatePad SE | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (22 - 130, n=16) | |
| 3DMark / Wild Life Extreme Unlimited | |
| Average of class Tablet (72 - 8889, n=73, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Pad | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 | |
| Oppo Pad Air | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (112 - 130, n=14) | |
| Honor Pad 8 | |
| Huawei MatePad SE | |
| 3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited | |
| Average of class Tablet (267 - 17674, n=66, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Pad | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 | |
| Oppo Pad Air | |
| Honor Pad 8 | |
| Huawei MatePad SE | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (267 - 1478, n=15) | |
| 3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics | |
| Average of class Tablet (240 - 29325, n=66, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Pad | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 | |
| Honor Pad 8 | |
| Oppo Pad Air | |
| Huawei MatePad SE | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (240 - 1324, n=15) | |
| 3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Pad | |
| Average of class Tablet (441 - 7451, n=66, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 | |
| Huawei MatePad SE | |
| Oppo Pad Air | |
| Honor Pad 8 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (441 - 2853, n=15) | |
| 3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Pad | |
| Average of class Tablet (615 - 7863, n=49, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (1234 - 1428, n=14) | |
| Oppo Pad Air | |
| Honor Pad 8 | |
| Huawei MatePad SE | |
| 3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Pad | |
| Average of class Tablet (521 - 10276, n=49, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (1087 - 1278, n=14) | |
| Oppo Pad Air | |
| Honor Pad 8 | |
| Huawei MatePad SE | |
| 3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Pad | |
| Oppo Pad Air | |
| Average of class Tablet (1370 - 4352, n=49, last 2 years) | |
| Huawei MatePad SE | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (2185 - 2576, n=14) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 | |
| Honor Pad 8 | |
| 3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Pad | |
| Average of class Tablet (361 - 14235, n=46, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (1231 - 1463, n=14) | |
| Honor Pad 8 | |
| Oppo Pad Air | |
| Huawei MatePad SE | |
| 3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Pad | |
| Average of class Tablet (290 - 24605, n=46, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (1077 - 1294, n=14) | |
| Honor Pad 8 | |
| Oppo Pad Air | |
| Huawei MatePad SE | |
| 3DMark / Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Pad | |
| Oppo Pad Air | |
| Average of class Tablet (858 - 5751, n=46, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 | |
| Huawei MatePad SE | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (2301 - 2930, n=14) | |
| Honor Pad 8 | |
| GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen | |
| Average of class Tablet (2.5 - 340, n=79, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Pad | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 | |
| Oppo Pad Air | |
| Honor Pad 8 | |
| Huawei MatePad SE | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (5.1 - 9.8, n=15) | |
| GFXBench / Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen | |
| Average of class Tablet (3 - 120, n=79, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Pad | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (4.6 - 17, n=15) | |
| Oppo Pad Air | |
| Huawei MatePad SE | |
| Honor Pad 8 | |
| GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen | |
| Average of class Tablet (0.9 - 114.5, n=79, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Pad | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 | |
| Honor Pad 8 | |
| Oppo Pad Air | |
| Huawei MatePad SE | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (1.4 - 3.3, n=15) | |
| GFXBench / Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen | |
| Average of class Tablet (1.9 - 106.4, n=79, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Pad | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (2.7 - 11, n=15) | |
| Oppo Pad Air | |
| Huawei MatePad SE | |
| Honor Pad 8 | |
| GFXBench / 4K Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen | |
| Average of class Tablet (0.4 - 55.1, n=77, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Pad | |
| Honor Pad 8 | |
| Oppo Pad Air | |
| Huawei MatePad SE | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (1.3 - 1.5, n=10) | |
| Octane V2 / Total Score | |
| Average of class Tablet (763 - 105178, n=87, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Pad | |
| Honor Pad 8 | |
| Oppo Pad Air | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 4G (6358 - 15553, n=12) | |
| Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 | |
| Huawei MatePad SE | |
| Oppo Pad Air | Huawei MatePad SE | Honor Pad 8 | Xiaomi Redmi Pad | Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 | Average 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash | Average of class Tablet | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -72% | 1% | 30% | -72% | -8% | 7% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 921.6 | 293.6 -68% | 833.56 -10% | 976.9 6% | 255.1 -72% | 728 ? -21% | 1045 ? 13% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 717 | 99.5 -86% | 708.51 -1% | 883.6 23% | 101.1 -86% | 527 ? -26% | 686 ? -4% |
| Random Read 4KB | 177.1 | 61.8 -65% | 189.57 7% | 250.82 42% | 68.3 -61% | 191.7 ? 8% | 189.4 ? 7% |
| Random Write 4KB | 172.8 | 54 -69% | 186.95 8% | 257.02 49% | 57.5 -67% | 185.8 ? 8% | 189.9 ? 10% |
3DMark Wild Life Stress Test
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 31.7 °C / 89 F, compared to the average of 33.7 °C / 93 F, ranging from 20.7 to 53.2 °C for the class Tablet.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 28 °C / 82 F, compared to the average of 33.2 °C / 92 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 22.5 °C / 73 F, compared to the device average of 30 °C / 86 F.
Oppo Pad Air audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.2% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.9% 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 7%, average was 22%, worst was 129%
Compared to all devices tested
» 48% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 45% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 28.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.3% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (6.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.9% 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 7%, average was 22%, worst was 129%
Compared to all devices tested
» 48% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 45% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| Oppo Pad Air 7100 mAh | Huawei MatePad SE 5100 mAh | Honor Pad 8 7250 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Pad 8000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 2022 7040 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | -22% | -11% | 28% | -17% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 823 | 638 -22% | 733 -11% | 1057 28% | 679 -17% |
| Reader / Idle | 2009 | 2448 | 3640 | 1973 | |
| H.264 | 958 | 838 | 971 | 824 | |
| Load | 249 | 225 | 310 | 230 |
Pros
Cons
结论 - 如果你能负担得起，你会得到一个好的平板电脑
Oppo Pad Air并不十分便宜，但它提供了一个非常别致和轻巧的外壳，一个大电池，可以实现长时间运行，以及快速的内存。
黑屏显示，Oppo Pad Air的首选使用领域是室内。因此，摄像头更适合于扫描东西或做视觉笔记，而不是拍摄伟大的自然风光。
这款平板电脑的一个特点是其快速的120赫兹屏幕，可以实现非常流畅的滚动，也可以在没有PWM的情况下进行管理。
你不应该过分依赖人脸识别：它的工作方式比其他平板电脑更不可靠，更笨拙。
Oppo Pad Air是一款并不便宜的平板电脑，拥有120赫兹的屏幕，良好的扬声器，以及较长的运行时间。
华为 华为MatePad SE提供了相同的SoC，价格却低得多，但你必须接受其操作系统的特殊性。 三星的Galaxy Tab A8也根据要求提供了LTE，但电池的寿命没有那么长。
价格和可用性
由于专利纠纷，Oppo目前没有在德国通过自己的网站销售该平板电脑。
然而，你可以从amazon.de获得它：与64 GB的大容量存储版本在测试时的价格约为271欧元，而amazon.de提供128GB的平板电脑，价格为314欧元。
Oppo Pad Air
- 01/25/2023 v7 (old)
Florian Schmitt
Transparency
The selection of devices to be reviewed is made by our editorial team. The test sample was provided to the author as a loan by the manufacturer or retailer for the purpose of this review. The lender had no influence on this review, nor did the manufacturer receive a copy of this review before publication. There was no obligation to publish this review. We never accept compensation or payment in return for our reviews. As an independent media company, Notebookcheck is not subjected to the authority of manufacturers, retailers or publishers.
This is how Notebookcheck is testing
Every year, Notebookcheck independently reviews hundreds of laptops and smartphones using standardized procedures to ensure that all results are comparable. We have continuously developed our test methods for around 20 years and set industry standards in the process. In our test labs, high-quality measuring equipment is utilized by experienced technicians and editors. These tests involve a multi-stage validation process. Our complex rating system is based on hundreds of well-founded measurements and benchmarks, which maintains objectivity. Further information on our test methods can be found here.
Price comparison
