Notebookcheck

小米 Mi Mix 平板手机简短评测

Andreas Kilian (translated by Delta Zhang), 01/16/2017
Android ARM Phablet Touchscreen

屏幕即是一切,一切都是屏幕。 小米的新旗舰平板手机在一个不会比传统的高端手机大多少的外壳中装进了一个巨大的6.4英寸的屏幕。考虑到700欧元(约合737美元)左右的起步价,它并不便宜。那么进口一台这样富有创新的设备是否值得呢?

Xiaomi Mi Mix (Mi Series)
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro 2.4 GHz
Graphics adapter
Memory
4096 MB 
, LPDDR4
Display
6.4 inch 17:9, 2040x1080 pixel 361 PPI, 多点触控, Sharp FTE716, IPS, glossy: yes
Storage
128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash, 128 GB 
, 119 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5-mm 音频接口, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: 加速度计, 陀螺仪 & 超声波距离感应器, 罗盘, 气压计, Miracast, USB-OTG, NFC, WiFi Direct
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 4.2, 2G (850/900/1800/1900 MHz), 3G (850/900/1900/2100 MHz), FDD-LTE: (bands: 1/2/3/4/5/7/9), TD-LTE: (bands 38/39/40/42), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 7.9 x 158.8 x 81.9
Battery
16.6 Wh, 4400 mAh Lithium-Ion
Operating System
Android 6.0 Marshmallow
Camera
Primary Camera: 16 MPix (自动对焦 f/2.0, 2160p 录像 @ 30 fps)
Secondary Camera: 5 MPix 5 百万像素 (定焦 f/2.2, 1080p 录像 @ 30 fps)
Additional features
Speakers: 底边单扬声器, 陶瓷音频系统耳机, Keyboard: 虚拟键盘, 充电器, 数据线, 皮质保护壳, Miui 8, Mi apps, 12 Months Warranty, fanless
Weight
209 g, Power Supply: 63 g

 

Mi Mix front
Mi Mix front
Mi Mix closeup
Mi Mix closeup
Mi Mix closeup
Mi Mix rear
Mi Mix closeup
Mi Mix in the leather case
Mi Mix in the leather case

Size Comparison

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
532 MBit/s ∼100% +84%
Google Pixel XL 2016
Adreno 530, 821 MSM8996 Pro, 32 GB eMMC Flash (Linksys EA8500, 5.0 GHz)
515 MBit/s ∼97% +78%
Xiaomi Mi Mix
Adreno 530, 821 MSM8996 Pro, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash (Linksys EA8500, 5.0 GHz)
289 MBit/s ∼54%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash (Linksys EA8500, 5.0 GHz)
281 MBit/s ∼53% -3%
Huawei Mate 9
Mali-G71 MP8, Kirin 960, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash (Linksys EA8500, 5.0 GHz)
259 MBit/s ∼49% -10%
OnePlus 3T
Adreno 530, 821 MSM8996 Pro, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
257 MBit/s ∼48% -11%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Apple iPhone 7
A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe
485 MBit/s ∼100% +107%
Google Pixel XL 2016
Adreno 530, 821 MSM8996 Pro, 32 GB eMMC Flash (Linksys EA8500, 5.0 GHz)
435 MBit/s ∼90% +86%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mali-T880 MP12, 8890 Octa, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash (Linksys EA8500, 5.0 GHz)
335 MBit/s ∼69% +43%
OnePlus 3T
Adreno 530, 821 MSM8996 Pro, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
313 MBit/s ∼65% +34%
Xiaomi Mi Mix
Adreno 530, 821 MSM8996 Pro, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash (Linksys EA8500, 5.0 GHz)
234 MBit/s ∼48%
Huawei Mate 9
Mali-G71 MP8, Kirin 960, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash (Linksys EA8500, 5.0 GHz)
165 MBit/s ∼34% -29%
Garmin Edge 500 - route
Garmin Edge 500 - route
Garmin Edge 500 - underpass
Garmin Edge 500 - underpass
Garmin Edge 500 - turning point
Garmin Edge 500 - turning point
Xiaomi Mi Mix - route
Xiaomi Mi Mix - route
Xiaomi Mi Mix - underpass
Xiaomi Mi Mix - underpass
Xiaomi Mi Mix - turning point
Xiaomi Mi Mix - turning point

Image Comparison

Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the zoom step. 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.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
536
cd/m²
571
cd/m²
572
cd/m²
559
cd/m²
577
cd/m²
602
cd/m²
583
cd/m²
585
cd/m²
598
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 602 cd/m² Average: 575.9 cd/m² Minimum: 1.27 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 89 %
Center on Battery: 530 cd/m²
Contrast: 1374:1 (Black: 0.42 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.7 | - Ø
ΔE Greyscale 4.2 | - Ø
Gamma: 2.23
Xiaomi Mi Mix
IPS, 2040x1080, 6.4
Huawei Mate 9
IPS, 1920x1080, 5.9
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Super AMOLED, 2560x1440, 5.5
Google Pixel XL 2016
AMOLED, 2560x1440, 5.5
OnePlus 3T
Optic-AMOLED, 1920x1080, 5.5
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
AMOLED, 2560x1440, 5.7
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5
Screen
Brightness
576
680
18%
552
-4%
408
-29%
430
-25%
297
-48%
553
-4%
Brightness Distribution
89
93
4%
96
8%
85
-4%
84
-6%
93
4%
97
9%
Black Level *
0.42
0.42
-0%
0.35
17%
Contrast
1374
1657
21%
1591
16%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
2.7
4.3
-59%
1.59
41%
4
-48%
7.1
-163%
2.67
1%
1.4
48%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
4.2
4.8
-14%
2.01
52%
3.2
24%
6.8
-62%
2.81
33%
1.3
69%
Gamma
2.23 108%
2.33 103%
2.01 119%
2.19 110%
2.23 108%
2.08 115%
2.21 109%
CCT
7287 89%
7255 90%
6321 103%
7037 92%
7866 83%
6379 102%
6667 97%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
82.12
66.31
63.1
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
99.98
99.79
99.83

* ... smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM detected 1136 Hz10 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 1136 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 10 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 1136 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 59 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 655 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 28740) Hz was measured.

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
37.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 10.4 ms rise
↘ 26.8 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 92 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (27.4 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
36 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 14.8 ms rise
↘ 21.2 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 276 (maximum) ms. » 26 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (43.1 ms).
Grayscale (contrast: auto, target color space: sRGB)
Grayscale (contrast: auto, target color space: sRGB)
ColorChecker (contrast: auto, target color space: sRGB)
ColorChecker (contrast: auto, target color space: sRGB)
Saturation Sweeps (contrast: auto, target color space: sRGB)
Saturation Sweeps (contrast: auto, target color space: sRGB)
Colorspace (contrast: auto, target color space: sRGB)
Colorspace (contrast: auto, target color space: sRGB)
Grayscale (contrast: standard, target color space: sRGB)
Grayscale (contrast: standard, target color space: sRGB)
ColorChecker (contrast: standard, target color space: sRGB)
ColorChecker (contrast: standard, target color space: sRGB)
Saturation Sweeps (contrast: standard, target color space: sRGB)
Saturation Sweeps (contrast: standard, target color space: sRGB)
Colorspace (contrast: standard, target color space: AdobeRGB)
Colorspace (contrast: standard, target color space: AdobeRGB)
AnTuTu Benchmark v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
138072 Points ∼75%
Huawei Mate 9
124087 Points ∼67% -10%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
128749 Points ∼70% -7%
Google Pixel XL 2016 (Version 6.2.1)
138641 Points ∼75% 0%
OnePlus 3T
159866 Points ∼87% +16%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL (v6.0.5 UWP Beta5)
94122 Points ∼51% -32%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
165399 Points ∼90% +20%
Geekbench 4
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
7577 Points ∼100%
Huawei Mate 9
3191 Points ∼42% -58%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
2805 Points ∼37% -63%
Google Pixel XL 2016
7047 Points ∼93% -7%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
4261 Points ∼20%
Huawei Mate 9
5629 Points ∼27% +32%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
5503 Points ∼26% +29%
Google Pixel XL 2016
4167 Points ∼20% -2%
OnePlus 3T
4236 Points ∼20% -1%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
5630 Points ∼27% +32%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
1804 Points ∼35%
Huawei Mate 9
1947 Points ∼38% +8%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
1840 Points ∼36% +2%
Google Pixel XL 2016
1513 Points ∼30% -16%
OnePlus 3T
1881 Points ∼37% +4%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
3476 Points ∼68% +93%
PCMark for Android - Work performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
5179 Points ∼64%
Huawei Mate 9
7403 Points ∼91% +43%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
4660 Points ∼57% -10%
Google Pixel XL 2016
4739 Points ∼58% -8%
OnePlus 3T
5664 Points ∼70% +9%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
1026 Points ∼67%
Huawei Mate 9
1076 Points ∼70% +5%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
994 Points ∼64% -3%
Google Pixel XL 2016
977 Points ∼63% -5%
OnePlus 3T
891 Points ∼58% -13%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
837 Points ∼54% -18%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
1542 Points ∼100% +50%
Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
3415 Points ∼40%
Huawei Mate 9
3939 Points ∼46% +15%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
2203 Points ∼26% -35%
Google Pixel XL 2016
5017 Points ∼58% +47%
OnePlus 3T
4444 Points ∼52% +30%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
2040 Points ∼24% -40%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
6875 Points ∼80% +101%
System (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
3399 Points ∼52%
Huawei Mate 9
3616 Points ∼55% +6%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
4080 Points ∼62% +20%
Google Pixel XL 2016
3889 Points ∼59% +14%
OnePlus 3T
3130 Points ∼48% -8%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
1386 Points ∼21% -59%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
6582 Points ∼100% +94%
Overall (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
2136 Points ∼65%
Huawei Mate 9
2772 Points ∼84% +30%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
2074 Points ∼63% -3%
Google Pixel XL 2016
2378 Points ∼72% +11%
OnePlus 3T
2218 Points ∼68% +4%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
1465 Points ∼45% -31%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
3097 Points ∼94% +45%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
85 fps ∼8%
Huawei Mate 9
80 fps ∼7% -6%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
81 fps ∼7% -5%
Google Pixel XL 2016
91 fps ∼8% +7%
OnePlus 3T
91 fps ∼8% +7%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
27.11 fps ∼2% -68%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
91.96 fps ∼8% +8%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
60 fps ∼13%
Huawei Mate 9
60 fps ∼13% 0%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
51 fps ∼11% -15%
Google Pixel XL 2016
55 fps ∼12% -8%
OnePlus 3T
59 fps ∼13% -2%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
18.75 fps ∼4% -69%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
57.71 fps ∼13% -4%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
47 fps ∼9%
Huawei Mate 9
34 fps ∼6% -28%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
38 fps ∼7% -19%
Google Pixel XL 2016
48 fps ∼9% +2%
OnePlus 3T
46 fps ∼8% -2%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
17.54 fps ∼3% -63%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
58.71 fps ∼11% +25%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
47 fps ∼21%
Huawei Mate 9
37 fps ∼16% -21%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
27 fps ∼12% -43%
Google Pixel XL 2016
30 fps ∼13% -36%
OnePlus 3T
45 fps ∼20% -4%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
11.81 fps ∼5% -75%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
55.17 fps ∼24% +17%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
30 fps ∼10%
Huawei Mate 9
24 fps ∼8% -20%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
28 fps ∼9% -7%
Google Pixel XL 2016
32 fps ∼11% +7%
OnePlus 3T
32 fps ∼11% +7%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
41.3 fps ∼14% +38%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
31 fps ∼18%
Huawei Mate 9
28 fps ∼16% -10%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
15 fps ∼9% -52%
Google Pixel XL 2016
17 fps ∼10% -45%
OnePlus 3T
32 fps ∼18% +3%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
41.5 fps ∼24% +34%
3DMark
Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
1990 Points ∼77%
Huawei Mate 9
2123 Points ∼82% +7%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
2002 (min: 1539) Points ∼77% +1%
Google Pixel XL 2016
1902 Points ∼74% -4%
OnePlus 3T
1452 Points ∼56% -27%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
1522 Points ∼59% -24%
Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
3874 Points ∼50%
Huawei Mate 9
2448 Points ∼32% -37%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
3015 (min: 2895) Points ∼39% -22%
Google Pixel XL 2016
3935 Points ∼51% +2%
OnePlus 3T
3310 Points ∼43% -15%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
4235 Points ∼55% +9%
Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
3200 Points ∼66%
Huawei Mate 9
2367 Points ∼49% -26%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
2710 (min: 2421) Points ∼56% -15%
Google Pixel XL 2016
3180 Points ∼65% -1%
OnePlus 3T
2577 Points ∼53% -19%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
3034 Points ∼62% -5%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
22860 Points ∼34%
Huawei Mate 9
15104 Points ∼22% -34%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
19610 Points ∼29% -14%
Google Pixel XL 2016
18222 Points ∼27% -20%
OnePlus 3T
22426 Points ∼33% -2%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
15626 Points ∼23% -32%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
36559 Points ∼8%
Huawei Mate 9
35626 Points ∼8% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
33031 Points ∼7% -10%
Google Pixel XL 2016
32652 Points ∼7% -11%
OnePlus 3T
34494 Points ∼8% -6%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
63386 Points ∼14% +73%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix
32263 Points ∼17%
Huawei Mate 9
27364 Points ∼14% -15%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
28671 Points ∼15% -11%
Google Pixel XL 2016
27766 Points ∼14% -14%
OnePlus 3T
30810 Points ∼16% -5%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
37746 Points ∼20% +17%

Legend

 
Xiaomi Mi Mix Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Qualcomm Adreno 530, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
 
Huawei Mate 9 HiSilicon Kirin 960, ARM Mali-G71 MP8, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge Samsung Exynos 8890 Octa, ARM Mali-T880 MP12, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
 
Google Pixel XL 2016 Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Qualcomm Adreno 530, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
OnePlus 3T Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Qualcomm Adreno 530, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
 
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 810 MSM8994, Qualcomm Adreno 430, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
Apple iPhone 7 Plus Apple A10 Fusion, Apple A10 Fusion GPU / PowerVR, 128 GB NVMe
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix (Chrome 55)
2403.9 ms * ∼4%
Huawei Mate 9 (Chrome 54)
2733.7 ms * ∼5% -14%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge (Samsung Browser 4.0.01-81)
2564.1 ms * ∼4% -7%
Google Pixel XL 2016 (Chrome 53)
2653.6 ms * ∼4% -10%
OnePlus 3T (Chrome 54.0.2840.85)
2719.3 ms * ∼5% -13%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL (Edge 13.10586)
5552.9 ms * ∼9% -131%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus (Safari Mobile 10.0)
1102.7 ms * ∼2% +54%
Octane V2 - Total Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix (Chrome 55)
9608 Points ∼21%
Huawei Mate 9 (Chrome 54)
11897 Points ∼26% +24%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge (Samsung Browser 4.0.01-81)
13191 Points ∼29% +37%
Google Pixel XL 2016 (Chrome 53)
8690 Points ∼19% -10%
OnePlus 3T (Chrome 54.0.2840.85)
9798 Points ∼22% +2%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL (Edge 13.10586)
8059 Points ∼18% -16%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus (Safari Mobile 10.0)
26053 Points ∼58% +171%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix (Chrome 55)
107 Points ∼19%
Huawei Mate 9 (Chrome 54)
152 Points ∼26% +42%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge (Samsung Browser 4.0.01-81)
163 Points ∼28% +52%
Google Pixel XL 2016 (Chrome 53)
126 Points ∼22% +18%
OnePlus 3T (Chrome 54.0.2840.85)
135 Points ∼23% +26%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL (Edge 13.10586)
113 Points ∼20% +6%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
204 Points ∼35% +91%
JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Mi Mix (Chrome 55)
58.4 Points ∼18%
Huawei Mate 9 (Chrome 54)
68.6 Points ∼21% +17%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge (Samsung Browser 4.0.01-81)
75.12 Points ∼24% +29%
Google Pixel XL 2016 (Chrome 53)
55.4 Points ∼17% -5%
OnePlus 3T (Chrome 54.0.2840.85)
54.526 Points ∼17% -7%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL (Edge 13.10586)
46 Points ∼14% -21%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus (Safari Mobile 10.0)
168.08 Points ∼53% +188%

* ... smaller is better

Xiaomi Mi MixHuawei Mate 9Samsung Galaxy S7 EdgeGoogle Pixel XL 2016OnePlus 3TMicrosoft Lumia 950 XLApple iPhone 7 Plus
AndroBench 3-5
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
29.53 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
50.36 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
53.97 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
76.43 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
Random Write 4KB
15.15
8.77
-42%
15.79
4%
14.56
-4%
74.39
391%
Random Read 4KB
116.6
94.69
-19%
86.71
-26%
87.67
-25%
123.57
6%
Sequential Write 256KB
161.25
142.92
-11%
145.11
-10%
83.38
-48%
165.3
3%
Sequential Read 256KB
409.86
594.23
45%
487.34
19%
258.23
-37%
436.43
6%
BaseMark OS II
Memory
1747
3850
120%
2072
19%
1677
-4%
1954
12%
1945
11%
1319
-24%
Asphalt 8: Airborne
 SettingsValue
 high29 fps
 very low29 fps
Real Racing 3
 SettingsValue
 high51 fps
 low60 fps
Max. Load
 40.1 °C40.2 °C37.9 °C 
 38 °C39.4 °C39.4 °C 
 36.4 °C37.3 °C39.6 °C 
Maximum: 40.2 °C
Average: 38.7 °C
32.3 °C33.7 °C36.2 °C
32.4 °C32.9 °C36.2 °C
31.9 °C32.6 °C33.6 °C
Maximum: 36.2 °C
Average: 33.5 °C
Power Supply (max.)  32.6 °C | Room Temperature 21.4 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2031.643.72525.436.73125.3364032.934.65033.649.86331.637.48028.429.61002732.912520.837.71602246.920021.353.725020.858.931521.26340019.465.650019.566.663017.769.380017.968.3100017.870.6125017.372.2160017.475.7200016.776.7250017.277.2315018.276.3400017.974.4500017.678.7630017.778.5800017.881.41000017.980.51250018.167.91600018.255.8SPL3088.4N1.375.4median 17.9Xiaomi Mi Mixmedian 69.3Delta1.310.231.635.725.424.825.324.932.925.633.635.131.630.128.423.32724.820.828.72235.521.343.320.849.321.253.719.455.119.56017.763.317.961.917.863.517.367.117.461.116.77017.272.618.274.117.976.217.675.717.773.917.871.517.972.518.166.718.254.13083.91.353.7median 17.9Huawei Mate 9median 63.31.310.7hearing rangehide median Pink Noise
Xiaomi Mi Mix audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88.42 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.8% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 6% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 91% worse
» The best had a delta of 15%, average was 26%, worst was 43%
Compared to all devices tested
» 35% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 60% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 22%, worst was 48%

Huawei Mate 9 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.86 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.2% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 10.4% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 38% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 50% worse
» The best had a delta of 15%, average was 26%, worst was 43%
Compared to all devices tested
» 62% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 29% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 22%, worst was 48%

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.08 / 0.29 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.87 / 2.16 / 2.28 Watt
Load midlight 9.21 / 11.76 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Xiaomi Mi Mix
4400 mAh
Huawei Mate 9
4000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
3600 mAh
Google Pixel XL 2016
3450 mAh
OnePlus 3T
3400 mAh
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
3340 mAh
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
2915 mAh
Power Consumption
18%
37%
45%
21%
-57%
19%
Idle Minimum *
0.87
0.78
10%
0.63
28%
0.53
39%
0.61
30%
2.85
-228%
0.77
11%
Idle Average *
2.16
2.13
1%
1.1
49%
1.07
50%
1.77
18%
2.95
-37%
2.04
6%
Idle Maximum *
2.28
2.17
5%
1.56
32%
1.12
51%
1.81
21%
3.26
-43%
2.24
2%
Load Average *
9.21
6.32
31%
5.95
35%
5.53
40%
6.67
28%
8.92
3%
4.69
49%
Load Maximum *
11.76
6.49
45%
6.7
43%
6.26
47%
10.98
7%
9.39
20%
8.66
26%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
29h 57min
WiFi Surfing v1.3 (Chrome 55)
10h 44min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
16h 04min
Load (maximum brightness)
4h 52min
Xiaomi Mi Mix
4400 mAh
Huawei Mate 9
4000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
3600 mAh
Google Pixel XL 2016
3450 mAh
OnePlus 3T
3400 mAh
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
3340 mAh
Apple iPhone 7 Plus
2915 mAh
Battery Runtime
-6%
9%
-29%
-16%
-40%
-12%
Reader / Idle
1797
1538
-14%
1663
-7%
1333
-26%
1423
-21%
1078
-40%
1835
2%
Load
292
219
-25%
392
34%
230
-21%
282
-3%
179
-39%
225
-23%
WiFi
WiFi v1.3
644
758
18%
732
14%
505
-22%
494
-23%
369
-43%
587
-9%
H.264
964
947
-2%
914
-5%
505
-48%
810
-16%
611
-37%
813
-16%

Pro

+ 惊人的屏幕
+ 坚固的高品质外壳
+ 双SIM卡
+ Miracast, USB OTG, 及 NFC
+ 带有很多附加功能的MIUI 8.0
+ 可靠的指纹识别器
+ 高性能
+ 附有皮质保护壳
+ 长电池续航时间

Cons

- 长时间负载下降频
- 外壳易残留指纹
- 没有耳机
- 电池不可拆卸
- 相机无图像稳定器
- 没有为德国做本地化
- 英语翻译不完整
- 出场无谷歌服务
- 不支持 LTE band 20
In review: Xiaomi Mi Mix. Review sample courtesy of TradingShenzen.com
In review: Xiaomi Mi Mix. Review sample courtesy of TradingShenzen.com

小米Mix的闪光点绝对是它不寻常的6.4英寸IPS屏幕,几乎无边框的设计使屏幕与陶瓷机身完美融合。不仅仅它那巨大的屏幕尺寸令人印象深刻,它的分辨率,亮度,对比度能适应所有的使用环境。诸如显示圆角之类的设计细节带给屏幕些许未来感。这台手机也有着最新的硬件配置。配以高通旗舰芯片,4GB的运行内存以及128GB的UFS2.0存储,这台设备能够流畅地运行,且在启动程序时不需要冗长的等待时间。由于完善的NFC,USB OTG,无线投影和蓝牙4.2版本,在外部连接方面无可挑剔。同时,可靠的指纹识别装置,附赠的皮制外壳和双面USB type-C接口也使得日常使用更加方便。没有光学防抖组件的相机和缺少对欧洲常用的LTE band 20的支持实在是太可惜了。

欧洲的用户不得不在软件上做出一些妥协。小米专有的用户界面有着很多实用的附加功能,但并不提供德语语言包,英文的翻译也不完整。而且谷歌服务也没有被预装,而其它在德国官方发售的Android手机基本上都有。但是,安装其他的系统或者安装Google Play商店则可以解决这个问题。

小米 MI Mix 因为它的创造性的屏幕设计而从其他的高端智能手机和平板手机当中脱颖而出。不幸的是,它并没有为欧洲的用户进行优化,包括有限的LTE 频段支持和不完整的翻译。

在欧洲,小米Mi Max只能从像为我们提供评测样机的TradingShenzen这样的进口商那里购买到。它目前的价格是677欧元加上邮递和可能的海关进口费用。目前价格在700欧元左右的华为的全新Mate 9平板手机绝对是一个有趣的替代品。尽管用户们可能无法在这台设备上找到像我们手上这台评测样品这样的不同寻常的屏幕,但是欧洲的LTE频段以及为中国用户设计的交互界面却不再是一个问题。

注:本文是基于完整评测的缩减版本,阅读完整的英文评测,请点击这里

Xiaomi Mi Mix - 01/02/2017 v6
Andreas Kilian

Chassis
89%
Keyboard
72 / 75 → 95%
Pointing Device
95%
Connectivity
47 / 60 → 78%
Weight
88%
Battery
95%
Display
87%
Games Performance
60 / 63 → 96%
Application Performance
59 / 70 → 85%
Temperature
89%
Noise
100%
Audio
70 / 91 → 77%
Camera
73%
Average
79%
87%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

> Notebookcheck中文版(NBC中国) > 评测 > 小米 Mi Mix 平板手机简短评测
Andreas Kilian, 2017-01-16 (Update: 2017-01-18)