vivo Y52 5G智能手机评测--有实力的中档手机
Possible competitors in comparison
Bewertung | Datum | Modell | Gewicht | Laufwerk | Groesse | Aufloesung | Preis ab |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 79.4 % v7 (old) | 02 / 2022 | Vivo Y52 5G Dimensity 700, Mali-G57 MP2 | 193 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.58" | 2408x1080 | |
| 76.9 % v7 (old) | 12 / 2021 | Vivo Y33s Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2 | 182 g | 128 GB eMMC Flash | 6.58" | 2408x1080 | |
| 80.5 % v7 (old) | 01 / 2022 | Xiaomi Poco M4 Pro 5G Dimensity 810, Mali-G57 MP2 | 195 g | 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash | 6.60" | 2400x1080 | |
| 78.9 % v7 (old) | 01 / 2022 | Motorola Moto G31 Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2 | 181 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.40" | 2400x1080 |
案例和设备--在vivo有很多快速的内存
如果你想买一部200欧元左右的智能手机，选择是巨大的。现在几乎所有的制造商都把目光投向了价格低廉的中档产品。在中国早已是一个成熟的制造商的vivo，也想在西方站稳脚跟，并在其Y系列中提供了一系列的设备
该 Vivo Y33s和 Y21s以及 Y72 5G已经被放在显微镜下，现在又出现了Y52 5G，奇怪的是它的价格低于Y33s。这有点奇怪，因为新机型有更快的内存和5G，这使得它更好，即使Y33s得到更多的工作内存。
Vivo Y52 5G采用塑料外壳，有石墨黑和极地蓝两种颜色。我们的评测样品是后者：背板会折射光线，因此从相机模块开始就会有多种颜色的闪耀。
机箱有高质量的构造，但前面的压力会传到屏幕上。这款智能手机的重量和大小与Poco M4 Pro因此，不一定适合小手。
安装了128GB的快速UFS 2.1内存，以及4GB的工作内存。特别是在内存方面，类似的钱有更多容量的手机。大容量存储可以通过microSD卡扩展，但你必须为此放弃第二个SIM卡插槽。在我们用参考的microSD Angelbird V60进行的测试中，读卡器的速度也相当慢。
| SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (7.7 - 77, n=78, last 2 years) | |
| Motorola Moto G31 (Angelbird V60) | |
| Xiaomi Poco M4 Pro 5G (Angelbird AV Pro V60) | |
| Vivo Y33s (Angelbird V60) | |
| Vivo Y52 5G (Angelbird V60) | |
Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)
通信、软件和操作 - 5G智能手机的臃肿软件
这款智能手机提供了通过5G和足够的4G频率进行移动互联网接入的选择，因此它也可以在国外旅行时使用。然而，vivo Y52并不是一款真正的世界手机，可以到处使用。在我们的样本中，移动接收在城市环境中是体面的，甚至在室内。
在我们与Netgear Nighthawk AX12路由器的测试中，Wi-Fi模块的传输速率是典型的Wi-Fi 5调制解调器，也是典型的价格范围。
vivo Y52 5G配备了FuntouchOS 11.1作为操作系统，该系统再次基于Android 11。在测试时，安全补丁是2022年1月的，因此是最新的。界面略为定制，但对于那些习惯于Android 的人来说，应该不会构成任何重大挑战。然而，如果你不想使用一些预装的第三方应用程序，如酒店预订服务，你必须卸载它们。
用于解锁智能手机的指纹传感器被整合到外壳右侧的待机按钮中。它很容易触及，并能可靠地解锁智能手机，没有延迟。
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Vivo Y52 5G | |
| Vivo Y33s | |
| Motorola Moto G31 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Motorola Moto G31 | |
| Vivo Y52 5G | |
| Vivo Y33s | |
照相机 - 没有广角镜头
vivo Y52 5G的主摄像头分辨率为4800万像素，但默认情况下总是将4个像素合二为一，从而实现更高的出光率。当然，这只能产生1200万像素的照片，但对于大多数应用来说，这完全足够。
该相机在大多数情况下都能保持良好的亮度，即使是在光线很弱和对比度很强的情况下。照片的细节水平只是一般，图像的清晰度也是如此。总而言之，就其价格范围而言，vivo Y52 5G拍摄的照片不错。
视频最多能以30帧/秒的速度录制1080p，the Poco M4 Pro至少能做到更流畅的60帧。录制的质量还不错，曝光调整得很快，而且相当流畅，自动对焦的反应也很快。
前置摄像头的最大分辨率为800万像素，可以自拍。这些照片乍一看还不错，但仔细一看就会发现前置镜头前面的屏幕玻璃的表面结构的细节，这使轮廓和细节失真。
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 camera - PlantMain camera - SurroundingsMain camera - Low Light
显示 - 60-Hz屏幕上的典型值
vivo Y52 5G采用了IPS技术的全高清屏幕，这是这个价格范围内的标准。在这里，还有 Poco M4 Pro也有优势，它的90赫兹帧率可以实现更流畅的运动，而这是vivo手机无法提供的。价格相近的 摩托罗拉Moto G31甚至配备了OLED屏幕。
vivo Y52 5G在亮度方面很有竞争力，但在真正的晴天，它可能不足以很好地识别屏幕的内容。我们在非常低的亮度下测量了PWM闪烁，但频率非常高，即使是敏感的用户也不应该有问题。
根据我们用分光光度计和CalMAN软件进行的测量，色彩再现也在一个级别上。对于要求严格的图形专业人员来说，其准确性可能不够，但对于家庭使用来说是足够的。
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 89 %
Center on Battery: 458 cd/m²
Contrast: 1174:1 (Black: 0.39 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.28 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 3.2 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
100% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.267
| Vivo Y52 5G IPS, 2408x1080, 6.6" | Vivo Y33s IPS, 2408x1080, 6.6" | Xiaomi Poco M4 Pro 5G TFT-LCD, 2400x1080, 6.6" | Motorola Moto G31 OLED, 2400x1080, 6.4" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response Times | 2% | -27% | 21% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 42 ? | 44 ? -5% | 50 ? -19% | 6 ? 86% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 26 ? | 24 ? 8% | 34.8 ? -34% | 6 ? 77% |
| PWM Frequency | 23150 ? | 223.2 -99% | ||
| Screen | -24% | -18% | 12% | |
| Brightness middle | 458 | 443 -3% | 504 10% | 423 -8% |
| Brightness | 437 | 424 -3% | 499 14% | 425 -3% |
| Brightness Distribution | 89 | 91 2% | 91 2% | 94 6% |
| Black Level * | 0.39 | 0.62 -59% | 0.72 -85% | |
| Contrast | 1174 | 715 -39% | 700 -40% | |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 3.28 | 3.14 4% | 3.3 -1% | 1.58 52% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 5.07 | 7.11 -40% | 6 -18% | 4.68 8% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 3.2 | 5 -56% | 4.1 -28% | 2.7 16% |
| Gamma | 2.267 97% | 2.189 101% | 2.28 96% | 2.219 99% |
| CCT | 7214 90% | 5990 109% | 7041 92% | 6674 97% |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -11% /
-19% | -23% /
-20% | 17% /
15% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 26 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 11 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 15 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 (21 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 42 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 21 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 21 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. » 64 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 23150 Hz |  | |
| ≤ 15 cd/m² brightness | |||
The display backlight flickers at 23150 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 15 cd/m² and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 23150 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. As the flickering occurs only on very low brightness settings, it should not be an issue in typical office settings. Nonetheless, use in low light conditions may be straining to the eyes. 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 - 快速的中档手机
扬声器联发科Dimensity 700被用作SoC。因此，vivo Y52 5G实现了良好的性能率，甚至几乎可以与 Poco M4 Pro在我们的基准测试中。在任何情况下，用户都能获得足够的能量用于日常使用，也能在智能手机上运行要求更高的应用程序。良好的性能率也不会导致过度加热。
我们还喜欢快速的UFS 2.1内存，这绝不是这个价格范围内的每部手机都能做到的。
底部边缘的单声道扬声器在需要时可以变得相当响亮。它不会失真，高音也不会被过分强调。总的来说，这个扬声器听起来一般，比这个价格范围内的许多其他手机要好，但声音仍然很单薄。因此，高质量声音的爱好者可能宁愿使用外部扬声器或耳机，可以通过3.5毫米插孔或蓝牙连接。
像vivo Y52 5G的5000毫安时电池也是中低端产品的标准配置。我们的评测样本在Wi-Fi测试中持续了16:27小时，这是一个良好的速率。电池可以用最大的18瓦特充电，这在同类产品中是一个很好的比率，但没有像在 Poco M4 Pro.因此，它有时需要1:30小时才能充满电。
| GFXBench | |
| on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen | |
| Average of class Smartphone (3.6 - 123, n=201, last 2 years) | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 700 (12 - 28, n=11) | |
| Xiaomi Poco M4 Pro 5G | |
| Vivo Y52 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G31 | |
| Vivo Y33s | |
| 1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2.3 - 261, n=201, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Poco M4 Pro 5G | |
| Vivo Y52 5G | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 700 (13 - 16, n=11) | |
| Motorola Moto G31 | |
| Vivo Y33s | |
| on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen | |
| Average of class Smartphone (0.85 - 119, n=201, last 2 years) | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 700 (7.9 - 17, n=11) | |
| Xiaomi Poco M4 Pro 5G | |
| Vivo Y52 5G | |
| Motorola Moto G31 | |
| Vivo Y33s | |
| 2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen | |
| Average of class Smartphone (0.85 - 104, n=201, last 2 years) | |
| Xiaomi Poco M4 Pro 5G | |
| Vivo Y52 5G | |
| Average MediaTek Dimensity 700 (5.2 - 6, n=11) | |
| Motorola Moto G31 | |
| Vivo Y33s | |
| Vivo Y52 5G | Vivo Y33s | Xiaomi Poco M4 Pro 5G | Motorola Moto G31 | Average 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -52% | 1% | -51% | -22% | 127% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 949 | 302.5 -68% | 964 2% | 309.8 -67% | 760 ? -20% | 1839 ? 94% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 342.5 | 236 -31% | 471 38% | 221.5 -35% | 297 ? -13% | 1425 ? 316% |
| Random Read 4KB | 187.2 | 120.7 -36% | 148.8 -21% | 84 -55% | 152.9 ? -18% | 277 ? 48% |
| Random Write 4KB | 207.5 | 57.6 -72% | 171.8 -17% | 109.8 -47% | 131.6 ? -37% | 309 ? 49% |
温度
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 38.9 °C / 102 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 38.1 °C / 101 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.4 °C / 81 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
扬声器
Vivo Y52 5G audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.8 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.9% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.9% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 27% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 64% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 47% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 44% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Vivo Y33s audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 7.1% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.5% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (27.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 67% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 27% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 81% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 15% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
电池寿命
| Vivo Y52 5G 5000 mAh | Vivo Y33s 5000 mAh | Xiaomi Poco M4 Pro 5G 5000 mAh | Motorola Moto G31 5000 mAh | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | |||||
| WiFi Websurfing | 987 | 1009 2% | 966 -2% | 1032 5% | 984 ? 0% |
Pros
Cons
评语--对于性价比的赢家来说，还不够。
vivo Y52 5G是一款经济实惠的中档智能手机，可以用一个体面的相机和相当大的计算能力来说服人。这款智能手机几乎没有任何真正的弱点。
vivo Y52仍然不能完全与大的对手竞争 小米Poco M4 Pro：它缺少一个额外的广角摄像头，90赫兹显示屏，甚至更快的充电技术，而且性能也不尽如人意。然而，那些寻找小米廉价智能手机替代品的人，会在vivo Y52 5G中发现很多这个价格区间的其他智能手机无法提供的东西。
vivo Y52 5G的配置与其价格相当，在某些方面可以与同类产品的性价比赢家竞争。
这款手机 摩托罗拉Moto G31不提供5G，但它确实有一个OLED屏幕。相较于 vivo Y72 5G我们目前的审查样本提供了更好的性价比。
价格和可用性
vivo Y52 5G在一些在线零售商处有售。制造商本身通过其在amazon.de的商店收取219欧元。该设备在其他零售商那里要贵得多。
Vivo Y52 5G
- 02/02/2022 v7 (old)
Florian Schmitt
Price comparison
