Tecno Spark 10 5G 智能手机评测：无 PWM 闪烁的炫目中端手机
潜在的竞争对手比较
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 78.7 % v7 (old) | 09 / 2023 | Tecno Spark 10 5G Dimensity 6020, Mali-G57 MP2 | 194 g | 64 GB UFS 2.2 Flash | 6.60" | 1612x720 | |
| 79.4 % v7 (old) | 05 / 2023 | Samsung Galaxy A14 5G Dimensity 700, Mali-G57 MP2 | 202 g | 64 GB UFS 2.2 Flash | 6.60" | 2408x1080 | |
| 81.7 % v7 (old) | 06 / 2023 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 5G SD 4 Gen 1, Adreno 619 | 189 g | 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
| 74.6 % v7 (old) | 07 / 2023 | Honor X7a Helio G37, PowerVR GE8320 | 196 g | 128 GB eMMC Flash | 6.74" | 1600x720 |
外壳和设备：特殊设计的塑料
Tecno Mobile？德国人可能没听说过这家智能手机原始设备制造商，但亚洲人，尤其是非洲人可能就不一样了。这家中国公司是当地最大的制造商之一。凭借物美价廉的手机和适应当地文字和语言的产品，Tecno 已经打响了知名度，并拥有了庞大的客户群。现在，这些设备也首次在全球西方国家上市，这足以让我们对它们进行试驾。
Tecno Spark 10 5G 是我们测试实验室中的第一款 Tecno 智能手机，价格约为 200 欧元，移动通信速度快，塑料外壳相当轻巧。它棱角分明的圆角设计和背面的三维表面尤其引人注目，在光线照射下会闪烁出不同的光泽。摄像头模块也巧妙地安装在这里。表壳的抗压性能稍逊一筹，但做工精致。重量和尺寸与同价位的其他设备基本相当。
除了根据 USB 2.0 标准传输数据的 USB Type-C 端口外，还安装了一个 3.5 毫米音频接口。我们的测试设备配备了 4 GB 工作内存和 64 GB 大容量存储空间，但国际上也有 128 GB 和 256 GB 数据存储空间的机型。
Tecno Mobile 总是说明其机型的内存大小，包括虚拟工作内存。因此，实际内存较小，但可通过数据存储中的交换文件进行扩展。这对运行内存消耗较大的应用程序时常很有帮助，但大容量存储器的运行速度要慢得多，因此不能完全替代专用工作存储器。
遗憾的是，该设备没有配备 NFC，因此无法使用移动支付服务。
前部的 SIM 卡托盘可插入一张 microSD 卡，后部可插入两张 SIM 卡。我们使用微型 SD 卡 Angelbird V60 对读卡器进行了测试，速度还不错，因此数据传输无需等待太长时间。
| SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Samsung Galaxy A14 5G (Angelbird AV Pro V60) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (7.7 - 77, n=78, last 2 years) | |
| Tecno Spark 10 5G (Angelbird V60) | |
| Honor X7a (Angelbird V60) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 5G (Angelbird AV Pro V60) | |
Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)
通信、软件和操作：综合软件
5G 调制解调器的工作频率足够高，即使在国外也能经常访问移动互联网。不过，Tecno 智能手机并不是一款可以随处使用的真正的世界级手机。在我们大约两周的测试阶段，由于采用了纯塑料外壳，接收效果相当不错，但还达不到高端手机的水平。
通过 Wi-Fi 模块，Tecno Spark 10 的 Wi-Fi 速度达到了 Wi-Fi 5 的标准--这实际上是手机所能处理的最快标准。在我们使用华硕 ROG Rapture AXE 11000 路由器进行的测试中，传输速度也相对稳定。但总的来说，它们略低于同价位的其他手机。
Android 华硕 ROG Rapture AXE 11000 手机预装了 13 操作系统，并在其上安装了制造商自己的软件界面 HiOS。它在许多方面对操作系统进行了调整，还提供了扩展功能：例如，用于信息服务的语音扭曲器、用于私人区域的遮光功能或多窗口模式。待机屏幕上会显示提示语。安全补丁是从 2023 年 6 月开始的，在测试时已经过时。目前每 3 个月更新一次。
触摸屏非常灵敏，即使在角落里也能精确使用。由于采用了 90 Hz 技术，触摸屏的反应速度更快。指纹传感器位于待机键右侧。它能非常准确地识别指纹，并快速解锁手机。人脸识别功能也可以使用，但它是基于二维图像的识别，因此容易受到操控。
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| Honor X7a | |
| Samsung Galaxy A14 5G | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 5G | |
| Tecno Spark 10 5G | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A14 5G | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 5G | |
| Honor X7a | |
| Tecno Spark 10 5G | |
相机：余光动态范围好
背面的主摄像头采用了海力士的 5000 万像素传感器。虽然还可以看到第二个镜头，但它只是一个用于模糊效果的低分辨率辅助摄像头，不能独立拍照。
在我们的拍照测试中，主摄像头拍摄近距离物体的效果相当不错，在暗处也能拍出动态效果良好的照片。不过，在环境拍摄中存在明显的清晰度问题。只能显示极少的细节，明亮的区域则显得黯淡无光。我们喜欢弱光和高对比度环境下的动态效果--亮部和暗部的细节依然清晰可见。不过，图像清晰度也相当一般。
视频最多可录制 2K 分辨率，因此像素要比全高清相机高一些。不过，60 帧/秒的分辨率只能达到 1,920 x 1,080。亮度调节反应相当迅速，自动对焦也做得很好。
前置摄像头分辨率为 800 万像素，配有 LED 闪光灯，隐藏在机身边框中。在光线充足的情况下，该摄像头能拍出不错的自拍照，还能稍微放大。不过，在暗处往往看不到细节。
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.
Hauptkamera BlumeHauptkamera UmgebungHauptkamera Low Light
显示屏低分辨率，无 PWM
遗憾的是，Tecno Spark 10 5G 只有 720p 屏幕。这在同类产品中并不完全罕见，但 200 欧元左右的全高清屏幕手机已经很多了，在这里你可以一眼看到分辨率更高的字体和图片。至少 Tecno 已经通过了 Widevine 认证，所以你可以在手机上欣赏高画质的流媒体视频。
遗憾的是，屏幕亮度也不如 Spark 10 的许多竞争对手。平均亮度为 425 cd/m²，在阳光充足的日子里户外使用可能会有困难。另一方面，黑色值较低，因此对比度相当不错，从而使色彩略微明亮。
在使用分光光度计和 Portrait Displays 公司的 Calman Ultimate 软件进行的测试中，我们发现有轻微的偏蓝现象。特别是，强烈的红色和棕色色调也会失真。
您不必担心屏幕上的 PWM 闪烁。
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 89 %
Center on Battery: 460 cd/m²
Contrast: 1533:1 (Black: 0.3 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.04 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 5 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
95.2% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.239
| Tecno Spark 10 5G IPS, 1612x720, 6.6" | Samsung Galaxy A14 5G PLS LCD, 2408x1080, 6.6" | Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 5G AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.7" | Honor X7a IPS, 1600x720, 6.7" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response Times | -36% | 96% | 0% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 21.6 ? | 46.48 ? -115% | 1.35 ? 94% | 33.8 ? -56% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 36.4 ? | 20.21 ? 44% | 1 ? 97% | 16 ? 56% |
| PWM Frequency | 343 | |||
| Screen | -40% | 50% | 11% | |
| Brightness middle | 460 | 579 26% | 658 43% | 586 27% |
| Brightness | 435 | 543 25% | 663 52% | 562 29% |
| Brightness Distribution | 89 | 87 -2% | 98 10% | 91 2% |
| Black Level * | 0.3 | 0.57 -90% | 0.26 13% | |
| Contrast | 1533 | 1016 -34% | 2254 47% | |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.04 | 7.6 -88% | 1.4 65% | 4.24 -5% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 6.84 | 12.7 -86% | 2.7 61% | 8.44 -23% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 5 | 8.7 -74% | 1.7 66% | 5.3 -6% |
| Gamma | 2.239 98% | 2.23 99% | 2.23 99% | 2.226 99% |
| CCT | 7896 82% | 9344 70% | 6504 100% | 6955 93% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -38% /
-39% | 73% /
61% | 6% /
8% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 36.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 19.6 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 16.8 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. » 94 % 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 | ||
| 21.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 10.1 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 11.5 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. » 30 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). | ||
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 8743 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
性能、排放和电池寿命：日常使用的动力
Tecno Spark 10 5G 采用的是一种相当新但已广为人知的 SoC。联发科 联发科 Dimensity 6020实际上是 Dimensity 700的新包装。我们评测的样品在同价位产品中性能相当可观，在基准测试中通常领先于对比设备。
在日常使用中时不时会出现一些小的延迟，但系统整体运行相当流畅，在使用更复杂的应用程序时也不会出现任何问题。当然，在这个价位上，你不应该期待高端功能，但这款手机足以胜任基本任务。快速的 UFS 2.2 存储系统虽然还不是所有设备的标准配置，但在这方面也很有帮助。
智能手机背面的最高温度为 42.7 °C，在长时间负载的情况下会明显发热，但不会达到临界值。正如 3DMark 压力测试显示的那样，处理器的性能在长时间工作后也不会受到或仅受到很小的限制。
手机的单声道扬声器听起来有点高音偏重，声音清晰，但在高音时会很快变得尖锐。如果连接耳机或扬声器，听音乐会更有趣。这可以通过 3.5 毫米音频接口或蓝牙实现。SBC、AAC、aptX、aptX HD、LDAC 以及 LHDC V3 和 V5 可作为无线编解码器使用。
5,000 毫安时电池的最大充电功率为 18 瓦，因此需要 2:30 小时才能再次显示 100% 电量。然后，您可以在无线局域网上冲浪长达 16 个小时，这样可以轻松地度过一天。
| PCMark for Android - Work 3.0 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (4609 - 24088, n=191, last 2 years) | |
| Tecno Spark 10 5G | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 6020 () | |
| Samsung Galaxy A14 5G | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 5G | |
| Honor X7a | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=203, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 5G | |
| Tecno Spark 10 5G | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 6020 () | |
| Samsung Galaxy A14 5G | |
| Honor X7a | |
| Tecno Spark 10 5G | Samsung Galaxy A14 5G | Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 5G | Honor X7a | Average 64 GB UFS 2.2 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -7% | -22% | -73% | -20% | 91% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 940.4 | 849.3 -10% | 520.09 -45% | 280 -70% | 770 ? -18% | 1847 ? 96% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 490 | 469.83 -4% | 505.55 3% | 223 -54% | 399 ? -19% | 1436 ? 193% |
| Random Read 4KB | 219.8 | 193.63 -12% | 170.61 -22% | 59.1 -73% | 156.6 ? -29% | 277 ? 26% |
| Random Write 4KB | 208.2 | 204 -2% | 161.26 -23% | 14.7 -93% | 177.7 ? -15% | 308 ? 48% |
温度
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 41.3 °C / 106 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 42.7 °C / 109 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 26.8 °C / 80 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 26.9 °C / 80 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 27.3 °C / 81 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
| 3DMark | |
| Wild Life Extreme Stress Test | |
| Samsung Galaxy A14 5G | |
| Tecno Spark 10 5G | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 5G | |
| Wild Life Stress Test Stability | |
| Samsung Galaxy A14 5G | |
| Tecno Spark 10 5G | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 5G | |
扬声器
Tecno Spark 10 5G audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 39.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 6.2% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (27.6% 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%
Honor X7a audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (79.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 30.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.8% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (28% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 70% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 25% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 83% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 14% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
电池寿命
| Battery Runtime - WiFi Websurfing | |
| Samsung Galaxy A14 5G | |
| Honor X7a | |
| Average of class Smartphone (476 - 3244, n=204, last 2 years) | |
| Tecno Spark 10 5G | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 5G | |
Pros
Cons
评语：没有高分，但也不错
Tecno Spark 10 5G 是一款价格低廉的中端手机，配备 5G，外壳设计别致，整体上可以说服我们：它的软件提供了多种选择，SoC 处理器的功率在同价位手机中相当大，电池的续航时间也很长。您还可以根据需要购买存储容量更大的机型。我们还喜欢这款相机的高动态范围和强烈的画面对比度。
不过，它在某些方面落后于竞争对手：屏幕较暗，分辨率较低，没有 NFC 功能，背面也没有广角摄像头。不过，这种有限的配置也可能提供较大的降价空间，因此 Tecno Spark 10 5G 仍可能是一款非常划算的 5G 手机。
Tecno 首次在欧洲发布的这款手机看起来非常壮观，但从技术上看却相当一般，尽管有一些亮点。无论如何，在西方迎来一个新的挑战者是令人兴奋的，根据制造商网站的介绍，它至少在设计方面仍有很多亮点。
Tecno Spark 10 5G 是该制造商首批进入西方市场的智能手机之一。它给人的第一印象是令人信服的，但这款手机在技术上还可以做得更好一些。
欧洲的老牌制造商提供了另一种选择：三星的 Galaxy A14 5G包括长期更新供应。例如，您还可以在这里省下几欧元，因为在测试期间，该设备在notebooksbilliger.de的售价为179欧元。如果您更喜欢使用 AMOLED 面板，您还应该看看 小米Redmi Note 12 5G.
价格和供应情况
测试期间，Tecno Spark 10 5G 在amazon.de和cyberport.de的售价略低于 200 欧元。一些零售商，如saturn.de可以为您提供更便宜的价格。
Tecno Spark 10 5G
- 08/29/2023 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
