Vivo NEX双屏版智能手机评测
» 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 | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 | |
ZTE Axon 9 Pro | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 | |
Vivo Nex Dual Display | |
LG V40 ThinQ | |
Honor View 20 | |
iperf3 receive AX12 | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 | |
LG V40 ThinQ | |
ZTE Axon 9 Pro | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 | |
Vivo Nex Dual Display | |
Honor View 20 |
|
Brightness Distribution: 92 %
Center on Battery: 586 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.3 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 6.8 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
Gamma: 2.1
|
Brightness Distribution: 95 %
Center on Battery: 399 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.5 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 6.5 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
Gamma: 2.19
Vivo Nex Dual Display Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 OLED, 2340x1080, 6.4" | LG V40 ThinQ OLED, 3120x1440, 6.4" | Samsung Galaxy S10 OLED, 3040x1440, 6.1" | Honor View 20 LTPS, 2310x1080, 6.4" | ZTE Axon 9 Pro AMOLED, 2248x1080, 6.2" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | 51% | 37% | 41% | 31% | 33% | |
Brightness middle | 399 | 599 50% | 567 42% | 701 76% | 492 23% | 521 31% |
Brightness | 404 | 593 47% | 559 38% | 705 75% | 475 18% | 517 28% |
Brightness Distribution | 95 | 96 1% | 89 -6% | 98 3% | 94 -1% | 96 1% |
Black Level * | 0.4 | |||||
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.5 | 1.4 69% | 3.3 27% | 3.7 18% | 2.4 47% | 2.9 36% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 9.6 | 3.2 67% | 6.1 36% | 10.3 -7% | 5.2 46% | 5.5 43% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 6.5 | 2 69% | 1.1 83% | 1.4 78% | 3.2 51% | 2.7 58% |
Gamma | 2.19 100% | 2.25 98% | 2.46 89% | 2.1 105% | 2.06 107% | 2.01 109% |
CCT | 7405 88% | 6496 100% | 6495 100% | 6553 99% | 7125 91% | 6288 103% |
Contrast | 1230 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 240.4 Hz | ≤ 99 % brightness setting | |
The display backlight flickers at 240.4 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 99 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 240.4 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 8710 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 250 Hz | ≤ 99 % brightness setting | |
The display backlight flickers at 250 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 99 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 250 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 8710 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. |
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
4.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2.4 ms rise | |
↘ 2 ms fall | ||
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 14 % 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 Black to White | ||
4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2 ms rise | |
↘ 2 ms fall | ||
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 12 % 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 | ||
4.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2.8 ms rise | |
↘ 2 ms fall | ||
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 13 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
4.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 2.4 ms rise | |
↘ 2 ms fall | ||
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 12 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). |
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
Vivo Nex Dual Display | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 | |
LG V40 ThinQ | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 | |
Honor View 20 | |
ZTE Axon 9 Pro | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (246366 - 299878, n=27) |
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
Vivo Nex Dual Display | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 | |
LG V40 ThinQ | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 | |
Honor View 20 | |
ZTE Axon 9 Pro | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (162183 - 242953, n=23) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Honor View 20 (Chrome 71) | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 (Chrome 70) | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 (Samsung Browser 9.0) | |
LG V40 ThinQ (Chrome 71) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (22.5 - 90.9, n=25) | |
ZTE Axon 9 Pro (Chrome 71) | |
Vivo Nex Dual Display |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 100368, n=210, last 2 years) | |
Honor View 20 (Chrome 71) | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 (Samsung Browser 9.0) | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 (Chrome 70) | |
LG V40 ThinQ (Chrome 71) | |
ZTE Axon 9 Pro (Chrome 71) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3991 - 18275, n=28) | |
Vivo Nex Dual Display (Chrome 72) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
Vivo Nex Dual Display (Chrome 72) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2154 - 11204, n=28) | |
LG V40 ThinQ (Chrome 71) | |
ZTE Axon 9 Pro (Chrome 71) | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 (Chrome 70) | |
Honor View 20 (Chrome 71) | |
Samsung Galaxy S10 (Samsung Browser 9.0) | |
Average of class Smartphone (277 - 28190, n=167, last 2 years) |
* ... smaller is better
Vivo Nex Dual Display | Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 | LG V40 ThinQ | Samsung Galaxy S10 | Honor View 20 | ZTE Axon 9 Pro | Global Average -3 | Average of class Smartphone | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | -22% | -21% | -17% | 19% | -19% | 8% | 263% | ||
Sequential Read 256KB | 768 | 675 -12% | 690 -10% | 832 8% | 847 10% | 719 -6% | 641 ? -17% | 1887 ? 146% | |
Sequential Write 256KB | 193.9 | 206.8 7% | 203.9 5% | 193.2 0% | 250.1 29% | 196.4 1% | 375 ? 93% | 1471 ? 659% | |
Random Read 4KB | 126.7 | 133.2 5% | 130.1 3% | 137.4 8% | 168.9 33% | 141.3 12% | 108.1 ? -15% | 278 ? 119% | |
Random Write 4KB | 135.8 | 19.54 -86% | 23.36 -83% | 24.44 -82% | 138.9 2% | 22.52 -83% | 97.7 ? -28% | 311 ? 129% | |
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 84.9 ? | 77.9 ? | 85.4 ? | 69.8 ? | |||||
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 63.1 ? | 64.8 ? | 61.6 ? | 51.7 ? |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 36.8 °C / 98 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 34.3 °C / 94 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.1 °C / 81 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Vivo Nex Dual Display audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (89.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.7% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 45% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 48% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 64% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 30% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.4% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 39% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 53% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 58% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 35% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Off / Standby | 0.02 / 0.37 Watt |
Idle | 0.72 / 1.36 / 1.38 Watt |
Load |
3.56 / 8.61 Watt |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Vivo Nex Dual Display 3500 mAh | Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 3200 mAh | LG V40 ThinQ 3300 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S10 3400 mAh | Honor View 20 4000 mAh | ZTE Axon 9 Pro 4000 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | 23% | -7% | -9% | -53% | -11% | -28% | -30% | |
Idle Minimum * | 0.72 | 0.49 32% | 0.87 -21% | 0.61 15% | 0.97 -35% | 0.86 -19% | 0.862 ? -20% | 0.883 ? -23% |
Idle Average * | 1.36 | 0.67 51% | 1.39 -2% | 1.27 7% | 2.58 -90% | 1.1 19% | 1.728 ? -27% | 1.467 ? -8% |
Idle Maximum * | 1.38 | 0.87 37% | 1.41 -2% | 1.3 6% | 2.63 -91% | 1.21 12% | 2.07 ? -50% | 1.621 ? -17% |
Load Average * | 3.56 | 3.64 -2% | 3.96 -11% | 6.17 -73% | 5.24 -47% | 5.02 -41% | 4.87 ? -37% | 6.58 ? -85% |
Load Maximum * | 8.61 | 9.04 -5% | 8.6 -0% | 8.55 1% | 8.73 -1% | 10.82 -26% | 9.27 ? -8% | 9.91 ? -15% |
* ... smaller is better
Vivo Nex Dual Display 3500 mAh | Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 3200 mAh | LG V40 ThinQ 3300 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S10 3400 mAh | Honor View 20 4000 mAh | ZTE Axon 9 Pro 4000 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Runtime | ||||||
WiFi v1.3 | 776 | 719 -7% | 510 -34% | 427 -45% | 969 25% | 661 -15% |
Pros
Cons
Vivo NEX Dual是一个有趣的替代方案,它为了几乎100%的屏占比放弃了前置摄像头。Vivo决定采用耳机插孔和近乎无边框的坚固设计给我们留下了深刻的印象。同样,它具有非常明亮的显示屏和不错的电池续航时间,应该可以让您至少一天一充。
Vivo NEX Dual是一款令人兴奋的智能手机,可以突破界限,提供全面的体验,不过也有一些其他主流设计智能手机不会受到的限制。
但是,该设备有其缺点。首先,我们不是特别喜欢Funtouch OS,特别是其不完整的翻译和第三方应用扩展错误。此外,虽然相机在前置标准方面表现出色,但它们无法在低光下与其他旗舰智能手机中的光学镜头竞争。其他一些小批评包括我们的评测单位的摇摆按键,3级DRM Widevine认证和IP 67认证;考虑到它的价格,我们原本认为该设备至少具有IP68认证。总体而言,NEX Dual是双显示智能手机概念的成功实现,除了一些小问题问题外几乎没有真正的缺点。
Vivo Nex Dual Display
- 08/31/2022 v7 (old)
Marcus Herbrich