对 Gigaset GS6 Pro 的评测结论
对于那些在欧洲购买智能手机时高度重视价值最大化的人来说，Gigaset的旗舰机型是Fairphone 6之外一个值得考虑的选择。对于部分用户而言，GS6 Pro可搭载无谷歌服务的AphyOS这一特性，也可能成为真正的购买理由。 此外，Gigaset承诺提供七年的Android系统更新。不过，在长期安全补丁支持之外，仅包含两次重大Android系统升级，将手机系统更新至Android 17。我们在测试中遇到的过时软件版本——搭载2026年5月安全补丁的Android 15——也与GS6 Pro的产品理念不太相符。
不过，在具体系统组件方面，Gigaset这款旗舰机型对区域性的侧重仍存在局限。与Fairphone类似，Gigaset手机所采用的硬件并非全部来自德国或欧洲。
与小米或三星的中端机型相比，GS6 Pro在德国研发和生产的过程中做出了诸多妥协。例如，其摄像头缺乏竞争力，芯片组的运行速度也远非快，导致日常使用中频繁出现卡顿。 振动马达在日常使用中的手感也显得相当粗糙。
不过，可更换电池、无线充电和防水机身这三者的结合，在中端机型中确实是一个真正的独特卖点。
Pros
Cons
Gigaset GS6 Pro 的规格参数
案例与功能——支持microSD卡的防水安卓手机
Gigaset的中端手机具备IP68级防尘防水性能，并在EPREL数据库中获得了非常优秀的A级可维修性评级。GS6 Pro的可更换电池为这一评级做出了积极贡献。尽管后盖可拆卸，但其采用玻璃材质，手感相当高档。 不过，机身边框采用的是塑料材质。
做工虽好，但屏占比仍有提升空间。约86%的屏占比尚未达到顶级水平。GS6 Pro的重量接近230克，明显比竞品更重，而超过1厘米的机身厚度也是日常使用中的另一缺点。
GS6 Pro 配备了一个可自定义多种功能的专用操作按钮，并支持 microSD 卡扩展。这使得 UFS 2.2 存储空间能够以相对低廉的成本扩展至最高 1 TB。不过，其 USB 2.0 接口速度较慢，这一点稍显不足。
| SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (5.72 - 58.9, n=53, last 2 years) | |
| Gigaset GS6 Pro (Angelbird AV Pro V60) | |
| Fairphone 6 (Angelbird AV Pro V60) | |
通信与易用性——支持5G但不支持Wi-Fi 7的安卓手机
该 Wi-Fi 模块支持 Wi-Fi 6E，包括 6 GHz 频段，尽管我们在测试中获得的测试结果相对较低。在移动数据方面，这款 Gigaset 智能手机最高支持 5G。不过，其支持的频段数量有限，尤其是 LTE 方面。但支持双卡双待和 eSIM 功能。
光学指纹传感器工作正常，但解锁屏幕需要相当长的时间。ERM振动马达的表现也不尽如人意，手感略显廉价。
| Networking | |
| Gigaset GS6 Pro | |
| iperf3 transmit Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| iperf3 receive Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| Samsung Galaxy A57 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
| Xiaomi Poco X8 Pro | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| Fairphone 6 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
| Average Wi-Fi 6E | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 transmit Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| iperf3 receive Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| Average of class Smartphone | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 | |
| iperf3 transmit AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 receive AXE11000 6GHz | |
| iperf3 transmit Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
| iperf3 receive Wi-Fi6/7 RT-BE96U | |
相机——一款配备6400万像素摄像头、但未搭载光学防抖（OIS）功能的平价中端智能手机
就摄像头配置而言，GS6 Pro 的多功能性并不突出。超广角和微距镜头在日常使用中都仅具有有限的实用价值。由 6400 万像素主摄像头拍摄的照片——该摄像头不具备光学防抖功能——在光线充足的条件下成像相当清晰。 然而，仔细观察后会发现，细微细节几乎难以辨认，且质感显得极其不自然。
由于图像传感器尺寸推测较小，低光环境下的照片表现欠佳，对于一款2026年的中端智能手机而言，其成像质量远未达到应有水平。最令我们印象深刻的是GS6 Pro主摄像头的色彩准确度。
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.
显示屏——大尺寸 120 Hz OLED 屏幕，无直流调光功能
尽管采用了AMOLED面板，显示技术爱好者恐怕很难对这款Gigaset旗舰机型感到满意。在使用Calman分析软件进行的测试中，这款120 Hz面板显示出非常大的色差。在亮度测试中，我们测得922 cd/m²这一可观数值，但如今在这个价位段，更高的亮度水平已属常态。
我们在 GS6 Pro 上检测到了屏幕闪烁（PWM），尽管其 485 Hz 的基频相对较高。遗憾的是，该机型既不支持高频 PWM 调光，也不支持直流调光。
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Center on Battery: 810 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE ColorChecker Calman: 4.5 | ∀{0.5-29.43 Ø4.7}
ΔE Greyscale Calman: 3.6 | ∀{0.09-98 Ø4.95}
100% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.25
CCT: 7131 K
| Gigaset GS6 Pro AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.7" | Samsung Galaxy A57 Super AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.7" | Xiaomi Poco X8 Pro AMOLED, 2756x1268, 6.6" | Fairphone 6 pOLED, 2484x1116, 6.3" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | 111% | 272% | 83% | |
| APL18 Peak Brightness (cd/m²) | 926 | 1920 107% | 3475 275% | 1458 57% |
| HDR Peak Brightness (cd/m²) | 922 | 1980 115% | 3406 269% | 1920 108% |
| Response Times | 0% | 6% | -60% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * (ms) | 1.2 ? | 1.21 ? -1% | 1.11 ? 7% | 3.44 ? -187% |
| Response Time Black / White * (ms) | 1.07 ? | 1.1 ? -3% | 1.05 ? 2% | 1.22 ? -14% |
| PWM Frequency (Hz) | 485 | 240 | 120 | 120 |
| PWM Amplitude * (%) | 17.65 | 16.72 5% | 16.04 9% | 14.02 21% |
| Screen | 57% | 54% | 29% | |
| Brightness middle (cd/m²) | 810 | 1135 40% | 1104 36% | 737 -9% |
| Black Level * (cd/m²) | ||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.5 | 1.7 62% | 1.2 73% | 1.6 64% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 6.8 | 2.5 63% | 2.4 65% | 3.9 43% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 3.6 | 1.4 61% | 2.1 42% | 3 17% |
| Gamma | 2.25 98% | 2.08 106% | 2.22 99% | 2.24 98% |
| CCT | 7131 91% | 6578 99% | 6472 100% | 6706 97% |
| Brightness (cd/m²) | 1134 | 1102 | 736 | |
| Brightness Distribution (%) | 99 | 97 | 97 | |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 56% /
50% | 111% /
86% | 17% /
11% |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 485 Hz Amplitude: 17.65 % |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 485 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 485 Hz is relatively high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. However, there are reports that some users are still sensitive to PWM at 500 Hz and above, so be aware. In comparison: 52 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 7686 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
在固定缩放级别下，采用不同亮度设置进行的一系列测量（尽管在最低亮度下的振幅曲线看起来平坦，但这只是由于比例缩放所致。信息框中显示的是最低亮度下振幅的放大图。）
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1.07 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 0.583 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 0.4825 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. » 5 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (19.7 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 1.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 0.509 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 0.686 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 0.13 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 6 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (30.8 ms). | ||
性能、排放和电池续航——一款搭载性能较弱芯片组但配备可更换电池的安卓手机
Gigaset手机的一大缺陷在于其搭载的Dimensity 7300与Mali-G57 MP2的组合，这一配置在2026年的中端市场已不再具备显著竞争力。在我们的基准测试中，同价位竞品设备的运行速度有时甚至超过其两倍。 在GPU跑分测试中，性能差距更为显著。
鉴于硬件性能不足，我们原本至少期望 Gigaset 手机能拥有出色的续航能力。然而，在我们的测试中，其续航时间仅为 16 小时，表现仅属中等。除了 30 瓦快充外，GS6 Pro 至少还支持无线充电。
| Gigaset GS6 Pro | Samsung Galaxy A57 | Xiaomi Poco X8 Pro | Fairphone 6 | Average 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 19% | 146% | 100% | -5% | 86% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB (MB/s) | 983.23 | 1683.07 71% | 3576.86 264% | 1973.22 101% | 902 ? -8% | 2234 ? 127% |
| Sequential Write 256KB (MB/s) | 823.09 | 1119.11 36% | 3565.14 333% | 2006.71 144% | 734 ? -11% | 1934 ? 135% |
| Random Read 4KB (MB/s) | 232.28 | 249.83 8% | 324.76 40% | 358.89 55% | 225 ? -3% | 312 ? 34% |
| Random Write 4KB (MB/s) | 243.83 | 149.04 -39% | 112.05 -54% | 487.48 100% | 250 ? 3% | 360 ? 48% |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 38.1 °C / 101 F, compared to the average of 35.3 °C / 96 F, ranging from 21.9 to 247 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 36.9 °C / 98 F, compared to the average of 34.1 °C / 93 F
3DMark 压力测试
| 3DMark | |
| Wild Life Stress Test Stability | |
| Gigaset GS6 Pro | |
| Fairphone 6 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A57 | |
| Xiaomi Poco X8 Pro | |
| Steel Nomad Light Stress Test Stability | |
| Samsung Galaxy A57 | |
| Fairphone 6 | |
| Gigaset GS6 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Poco X8 Pro | |
Gigaset GS6 Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (89.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 7.1% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.3% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (9.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 45% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 47% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 34%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 63% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 30% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 23%, worst was 134%
Xiaomi Poco X8 Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (90.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.8% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (5.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 6.1% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.6% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (15.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 5% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 91% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 34%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 24% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 70% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 23%, worst was 134%
| Off / Standby |   0.03 / 0.2 Watt |
| Idle |  0.55 / 0.9 / 0.98 Watt |
    
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Gigaset GS6 Pro 5300 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A57 5000 mAh | Xiaomi Poco X8 Pro 6500 mAh | Fairphone 6 4415 mAh | Average MediaTek Dimensity 7300 | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | -84% | -46% | -9% | -85% | -63% | |
| Idle Minimum * (Watt) | 0.55 | 0.71 -29% | 0.97 -76% | 0.67 -22% | 1.072 ? -95% | 0.871 ? -58% |
| Idle Average * (Watt) | 0.9 | 1.94 -116% | 1.19 -32% | 0.94 -4% | 1.555 ? -73% | 1.464 ? -63% |
| Idle Maximum * (Watt) | 0.98 | 2.04 -108% | 1.28 -31% | 1 -2% | 1.827 ? -86% | 1.65 ? -68% |
| Load Average * (Watt) | 6.19 | 5.99 | 4.4 ? | 6.87 ? | ||
| Load Maximum * (Watt) | 13.67 | 10.53 | 7.95 ? | 11.3 ? |
* ... smaller is better
| Battery runtime - WiFi v1.3 | |
| Gigaset GS6 Pro | |
| Samsung Galaxy A57 | |
| Xiaomi Poco X8 Pro | |
| Fairphone 6 | |
Notebookcheck 综合评分
性价比绝非这款“德国制造”智能手机的强项，但Gigaset GS6 Pro的摄像头画质，即便放在入门级价位段，也堪称勉强达标。
Gigaset GS6 Pro
- 08/21/2026 v8
Marcus Herbrich
Total Sustainability Score: 可能替代方案的比较
Image | Model / Review | Price | Weight | Drive | Display |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. 76.3%  | Gigaset GS6 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 7300 ⎘ ARM Mali-G57 MP2 ⎘ 8 GB Memory, 256 GB UFS 2.2 | Amazon: List Price: 449€ | 230 g | 256 GB UFS 2.2 Flash | 6.67" 2400x1080 395 PPI AMOLED |
2. 81.5%  | Samsung Galaxy A57 Samsung Exynos 1680 ⎘ Samsung Xclipse 550 ⎘ 8 GB Memory, 256 GB UFS 3.1 | Amazon: List Price: 589€ | 179 g | 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.70" 2340x1080 385 PPI Super AMOLED |
3. 83.8%  | Xiaomi Poco X8 Pro MediaTek Dimensity 8500 ⎘ ARM Mali-G720 MP8 ⎘ 12 GB Memory, 512 GB UFS 4.x | Amazon: $374.50 List Price: 400€ | 202 g | 512 GB UFS 4.1 Flash | 6.59" 2756x1268 460 PPI AMOLED |
4. 79.2%  | Fairphone 6 Qualcomm Snapdragon 7s Gen 3 ⎘ Qualcomm Adreno 810 ⎘ 8 GB Memory, 256 GB UFS 3.1 | Amazon: List Price: 599€ | 191.4 g | 256 GB UFS 3.1 Flash | 6.31" 2484x1116 432 PPI pOLED |
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. 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.
Add as a preferred source on Google
