Ulefone Armor 15智能手机评测--带耳机的坚固户外手机
潜在的竞争对手比较
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 74.5 % v7 (old) | 10 / 2022 | Ulefone Armor 15 Helio G35, PowerVR GE8320 | 346 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 5.45" | 1440x720 | |
| 81.9 % v7 (old) | 08 / 2022 | Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro SD 778G 5G, Adreno 642L | 235 g | 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash | 6.60" | 2408x1080 | |
| 79.7 % v7 (old) | 08 / 2022 | AGM Glory G1S SD 480, Adreno 619 | 315 g | 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash | 6.53" | 2340x1080 | |
| 81.1 % v7 (old) | 09 / 2021 | Nokia XR20 SD 480, Adreno 619 | 248 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 |
外壳和功能 - 坚固的金属和橡胶的智能手机
Ulefone Armor 15是一款所谓的耐用型智能手机，这意味着它应该能够承受恶劣的环境条件而不被损坏，因此，像这类设备一样，它的体积不是很小巧。此外，两个完全无线的耳机（TWS耳机）可以在智能手机内储存和充电，这将重量和尺寸推得更高--智能手机重346克（约0.76磅），最厚处为20毫米（约0.8英寸）。
显示屏的边缘在顶部和底部特别宽，这就是为什么该智能手机比例如三星Galaxy S21 ，尽管5.45英寸的显示屏仍然很紧凑，但明显更大。外壳本身是抗扭的，并在顶部和底部用橡胶边缘加固。所有的输入和输出都有橡胶盖保护。这款智能手机缺乏Widevine认证，L3等级只允许播放分辨率下降的相应材料。
弹性--Ulefone Armor 15兑现了它的承诺
该智能手机通过了IP68、IP68K和MIL-STD-810认证，这意味着该智能手机应该可以防止从1.5米（约4.9英尺）的地方跌落，并且可以在1.5米（约4.9英尺）深处浸泡30分钟。此外，智能手机不应受到负压、湿度增加、与酸性环境接触和太阳辐射的影响。
该模型在测试中也能证明所宣传的特性。Armor 15从150厘米（约4.9英尺）的高度跌落到人行道板上，总共七次，事先没有安装附带的厚保护膜。损坏主要发生在加固的橡胶角上。一次故意跌落到石板的边缘，实际上大大划伤了一块金属外壳，但它仍然是外壳的外观损伤--显示屏上有一个最小的划痕。即使在跌落测试后，对水柱和浸泡的防水性能仍然存在。
| SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (7.7 - 77, n=77, last 2 years) | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro (Angelbird V60) | |
| AGM Glory G1S (Angelbird V60) | |
| Nokia XR20 (Angelbird V60) | |
| Ulefone Armor 15 (Angelbird AV Pro V60) | |
Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)
通信、软件和操作 - 纯粹的Android ，广泛的LTE覆盖范围
积极的。Ulefone在Armor 15中使用了12版的Android ，没有臃肿的软件。没有安装额外的软件，例如用于户外活动的软件。
与5G移动网络的连接是不可能的，但可以使用LTE。支持众多频段，包括与德国相关的频段--Ulefone Armor 15还支持频段20，廉价的进口智能手机不一定支持。用两张SIM卡操作是可能的，由于有三个卡槽，通过microSD卡和双SIM卡的内存扩展也是可能的。然而，microSD读卡器只能处理低于平均水平的数据传输率，也不支持exFAT标准。NFC，因此可以进行无线支付。调频收音机可以--而且由于缺乏插孔而必须--在没有连接有线耳机的情况下使用，考虑到TWS耳机，这可能是有用的，例如在徒步旅行时。
触摸屏有一个手套模式，这使得用户在测试中即使戴着厚厚的羊毛手套也能操作它。Ulefone还在外壳的右侧安装了一个专用的相机按钮，在左侧有一个可配置的快速访问键。这可以分配一些有用的功能，如手电筒，但也允许打开应用程序。可以为单次、双击和长按定义不同的动作。电源键上的指纹传感器在测试中可靠地工作，在足够的亮度下，用面部解锁也很容易使用。
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Nokia XR20 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Nokia XR20 | |
| AGM Glory G1S | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| AGM Glory G1S | |
| Ulefone Armor 15 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| Ulefone Armor 15 | |
照相机--在低光下不堪重负
Ulefone Armor 15背面有两个摄像头--索尼IMX363传感器提供1200万像素的分辨率，加上三星的S5K3M3传感器，具有超广角光学。像AGM Glory G1S中的红外或夜视摄像头 AGM Glory G1S不属于该设备的一部分。
主摄像头提供了可用的质量，至少在最佳条件下是这样的，但没有达到更高质量的智能手机的清晰度，如Honor Magic4 Pro ，。总的来说，主摄像头缺乏细节，特别是传感器不能充分捕捉具有大对比度的场景。低对比度范围和缺乏细节也影响了超广角镜头。在低亮度的情况下，整体记录质量明显恶化。
也可以用每秒30帧的全高清分辨率进行视频录制，尽管视频录制也缺乏细节，而且在快速运动时自动对焦的速度不够快。
这款坚固耐用的智能手机配备了一个1600万像素的前置摄像头。图像质量对于视频通话来说是绰绰有余的，但相机的清晰度也不是特别高。由于显示屏的亮度较低，显示闪光灯并不总是有用。
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 cameraUltra wide angleZoomLow-Light
显示器 - 太暗，太小，分辨率太低
5.45英寸显示屏提供了1440 x 720像素的分辨率，这在2022年已不再是标准。然而，由于屏幕对角线仍然相对较小，主观感受到的模糊程度仍然有限。色彩还原和亮度分布是可以接受的--这只是亮度本身的部分情况。
尽管Ulefone Armor 15在亮度方面可以击败竞争对手AGM Glory G1S，但407cd/m²的亮度导致了制造商在户外使用时的反射。最低亮度特别高，这导致在夜间使用时，眼睛会有很多疲劳。屏幕的轻微偏蓝，可以测量，在使用中并不令人讨厌。在测试中，有迹象表明使用了时间上的抖动。
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 96 %
Center on Battery: 416 cd/m²
Contrast: 1124:1 (Black: 0.37 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 7.3 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 9.6 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
95% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 1.95
| Ulefone Armor 15 IPS, 1440x720, 5.5" | Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro PLS, 2408x1080, 6.6" | AGM Glory G1S IPS, 2340x1080, 6.5" | Nokia XR20 IPS, 2400x1080, 6.7" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response Times | 17% | 3% | -23% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 35.41 ? | 31 ? 12% | 29 ? 18% | 36 ? -2% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 17.89 ? | 14 ? 22% | 20 ? -12% | 16 ? 11% |
| PWM Frequency | 5221 | 1163 ? -78% | ||
| Screen | 2% | 8% | 39% | |
| Brightness middle | 416 | 510 23% | 390 -6% | 599 44% |
| Brightness | 407 | 495 22% | 377 -7% | 598 47% |
| Brightness Distribution | 96 | 92 -4% | 91 -5% | 99 3% |
| Black Level * | 0.37 | 0.46 -24% | 0.43 -16% | 0.33 11% |
| Contrast | 1124 | 1109 -1% | 907 -19% | 1815 61% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 7.3 | 7.41 -2% | 5.13 30% | 4.52 38% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 15 | 13.26 12% | 7.96 47% | 7.6 49% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 9.6 | 10.6 -10% | 5.7 41% | 4.2 56% |
| Gamma | 1.95 113% | 2.518 87% | 2.423 91% | 2.279 97% |
| CCT | 8536 76% | 10050 65% | 7974 82% | 7309 89% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 10% /
5% | 6% /
7% | 8% /
22% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 17.89 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 5.075 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 12.81 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 36 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 35.41 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 16.45 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 18.96 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. » 45 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 5221 Hz |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 5221 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 5221 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 8705 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
性能、排放和电池寿命 - 运行时间长，性能弱
这款手机 Helio G35是一个低价的SoC，它有八个Cortex A53内核。这些时钟频率高达2.3GHz。六千兆字节的工作内存对这个价格范围来说是合适的。Helio G35的性能并不突出，让Ulefone Armor 15与其他经过测试的--但也是更昂贵的--坚固耐用的智能手机如AGM Glory G1S相比，速度很慢。
在基准测试中表现出的薄弱性能在实际使用中也可以看到。即使是简单的应用程序也不能毫无滞后地启动。总的来说，操作速度还是可以接受的，但只有60赫兹的刷新率不利于实现流畅的体验。Ulefone Armor 15不会变得特别热。
扬声器提供了良好的再现质量。扬声器的高、可实现的音量可能与户外使用有关。某种程度上的低频再现也得益于两个扬声器的存在，它们分别位于显示屏的上方和下方。即使在较高的音量下，也没有明显的失真。
正如预期的那样，强大的6000毫安时电池提供了很高的电池寿命，在Wi-Fi测试中达到了整整1059分钟的运行时间--因此战胜了AGM Glory G1S以及其他手机。 三星Galaxy XCover 6 Pro.充电可以用18瓦特，还包括一个最大充电功率为15瓦特的充电器。
| GFXBench | |
| on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Ulefone Armor 15 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro | |
| AGM Glory G1S | |
| Nokia XR20 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G35 (7.4 - 8.1, n=5) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.6 - 247, n=203, last 2 years) | |
| 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Ulefone Armor 15 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro | |
| AGM Glory G1S | |
| Nokia XR20 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G35 (4.1 - 4.2, n=5) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2.3 - 263, n=203, last 2 years) | |
| on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value) | |
| Ulefone Armor 15 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro | |
| AGM Glory G1S | |
| Nokia XR20 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G35 (4.7 - 5, n=5) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (0.85 - 144, n=203, last 2 years) | |
| 2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Ulefone Armor 15 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro | |
| AGM Glory G1S | |
| Nokia XR20 | |
| Average Mediatek Helio G35 (1.4 - 1.5, n=5) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (0.85 - 112, n=203, last 2 years) | |
| Ulefone Armor 15 | Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro | AGM Glory G1S | Nokia XR20 | Average 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 393% | 275% | 279% | 168% | 815% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 285.68 | 841.6 195% | 497.9 74% | 485 70% | 530 ? 86% | 1863 ? 552% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 161.1 | 484.7 201% | 484.1 200% | 452 181% | 212 ? 32% | 1446 ? 798% |
| Random Read 4KB | 64.99 | 170.6 163% | 168 159% | 174.8 169% | 130.6 ? 101% | 278 ? 328% |
| Random Write 4KB | 18.36 | 204.2 1012% | 141 668% | 146.2 696% | 101.2 ? 451% | 309 ? 1583% |
温度
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 33.9 °C / 93 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 63.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 33.7 °C / 93 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.9 °C / 84 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
演讲者
Ulefone Armor 15 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (94.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.9% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (2.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 7.3% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.8% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 7% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 87% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 27% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 66% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Nokia XR20 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 32.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.4% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.1% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.2% 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 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 70% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 24% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
耳机 - 一个不错的补充
附带的耳机可以放入智能手机的外壳中，也可以在那里充电。耳机由橡胶密封圈保护不受环境影响，在测试中也提供了足够的防水保护。耳机配备了用于操作的触摸表面，可以暂停和继续播放，也可以选择下一个或上一个曲目。
在音质方面，该耳机的定位相对较好，即使在高音量下也能提供相对清晰的声音图像。然而，这款耳机显然不如三星的Galaxy Buds2 Pro，至少在频率测量方面是如此，但实际播放质量相当合适。这款小巧的耳机可在智能手机中充电。缺点是耳机没有麦克风，这使得它们不适合作为免提设备。这对于户外使用特别有用。
Ulefone Armor 15 TWS audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (93.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 15.3% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (2.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 7.9% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 9.8% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 44% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 49% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 44% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 49% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Samsung Galaxy Buds2 Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (95.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 13.6% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (2.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 7.6% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 12.2% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (18.3% 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 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 36% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 56% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
电池寿命
| Battery Runtime - WiFi Websurfing | |
| Ulefone Armor 15 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (476 - 3244, n=204, last 2 years) | |
| AGM Glory G1S | |
| Nokia XR20 | |
| Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro | |
Pros
Cons
结论 - 耐用和缓慢的智能手机，有一个转折点
通过Armor 15，Ulefone提供了一款智能手机，基本上达到了制造商的自我要求的目标。TWS耳机的整合基本上是成功的，它们甚至提供了相当高的播放质量。
缺点是显示屏比较暗，分辨率低，安装的SoC性能低。
该性能也影响了日常使用。另一方面，外壳是完全令人信服的。它非常坚固，实际上可以承受重物。即使在掉落之后，防水性仍然很好，而且该机型的制造质量基本上无可挑剔。
Ulefone Armor 15是一款适合户外专业人士和音乐爱好者的智能手机--而且只有一个口袋。
然而，Ulefone绝对是通过Armor 15为市场上一个非常尖锐的目标群体推出了一款智能手机，据此，仅仅不到260欧元（约合251美元）的广告价格绝对可以将智能手机的弱点纳入考虑范围。笨重的设备在日常使用中可能会让人讨厌。例如，寻找更强大的设备的客户将不得不为AGM公司的Glory G1S ，支付更多的费用。来自大型制造商的另一个选择是三星Galaxy XCover 6 Pro ，它的价格也要高得多。
价格和可用性
Ulefone Armor 15 Pro可直接从制造商处购买https://www.ulefone.com/armor-15-p1517.html，或在亚马逊.该模型提供三种颜色的变体。
Ulefone Armor 15
- 10/11/2022 v7 (old)
Silvio Werner
Price comparison
