Notebookcheck

亚马逊 Fire 7 (2017) 平板电脑简短评测

Marcus Herbrich (translated by Yuchen Wang), 07/22/2017
Android Touchscreen Tablet

为在乎每一分钱的用户设计。 亚马逊的最新一代Fire 7平板电脑更薄,更轻,搭配了更好的屏幕,也应带来更好的电池续航。不过它的售价却没有改变,因此2017年版Fire 7仍然性价比非常高。请阅读我们的详尽评测了解这款入门级平板电脑是否值得考虑。

Amazon Fire 7 2017 (Fire Series)
Processor
Mediatek MT8127 1.3 GHz
Graphics adapter
ARM Mali-450 MP4
Memory
1024 MB 
Display
7 inch 16:10, 1024x600 pixel 170 PPI, 电容式,多点触控, LCD, IPS, glossy: yes
Storage
8 GB eMMC Flash, 8 GB 
, 4.5 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Card Reader: MicroSD卡最大支持256 GB, Sensors: 加速感应器, OTG
Networking
802.11a/b/g/n (a/b/g/n), Bluetooth 4.1
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 9.6 x 192 x 115
Battery
2980 mAh Lithium-Polymer, Battery runtime (according to manufacturer): 6 h
Operating System
Android 5.1 Lollipop
Camera
Primary Camera: 2 MPix
Secondary Camera: 0.3 MPix
Additional features
Speakers: 单声道, Keyboard: 触控, Keyboard Light: yes, USB数据线,5瓦电源适配器,快速开始说明, Fire OS 5, 12 Months Warranty, fanless
Weight
295 g, Power Supply: 67 g
Price
70 Euro

 

Size Comparison

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
615 MBit/s ∼100% +1200%
Amazon Fire 7 2017
Mali-450 MP4, MT8127, 8 GB eMMC Flash
47.3 MBit/s ∼8%
Amazon Fire Tablet
Mali-450 MP4, MT8127, 8 GB eMMC Flash
45.1 MBit/s ∼7% -5%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
569 MBit/s ∼100% +679%
Amazon Fire 7 2017
Mali-450 MP4, MT8127, 8 GB eMMC Flash
73 MBit/s ∼13%
Amazon Fire Tablet
Mali-450 MP4, MT8127, 8 GB eMMC Flash
45.6 MBit/s ∼8% -38%

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.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
369
cd/m²
324
cd/m²
337
cd/m²
347
cd/m²
328
cd/m²
325
cd/m²
354
cd/m²
329
cd/m²
324
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 369 cd/m² Average: 337.4 cd/m² Minimum: 1.67 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 88 %
Center on Battery: 328 cd/m²
Contrast: 937:1 (Black: 0.35 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.6 | - Ø
ΔE Greyscale 3.8 | - Ø
Gamma: 2.25
Amazon Fire 7 2017
IPS, 1024x600, 7
Amazon Fire Tablet
IPS, 1024x600, 7
Acer Iconia One 8
IPS, 1280x800, 8
Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 2016
IPS, 1280x800, 7
Xiaomi MiPad 2
IPS, 2048x1536, 7.9
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
Super AMOLED, 2048x1526, 9.7
Screen
-40%
5%
-6%
-4%
40%
Brightness
337
299
-11%
338
0%
344
2%
402
19%
468
39%
Brightness Distribution
88
83
-6%
83
-6%
92
5%
91
3%
82
-7%
Black Level *
0.35
0.38
-9%
0.31
11%
0.37
-6%
0.4
-14%
Contrast
937
850
-9%
1184
26%
968
3%
1063
13%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
4.6
9.3
-102%
4.1
11%
5.3
-15%
4.98
-8%
1.8
61%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
3.8
7.8
-105%
4.38
-15%
4.7
-24%
5.2
-37%
1.2
68%
Gamma
2.25 107%
1.99 121%
2.33 103%
2.44 98%
2.65 91%
2.11 114%
CCT
7338 89%
7736 84%
6394 102%
7222 90%
7249 90%
6500 100%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
82.32
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
99.06

* ... 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 12500 Hz17 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 12500 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 17 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 12500 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 58 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 5901 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) 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
28.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 16 ms rise
↘ 12.4 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 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 65 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (26.8 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
39.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 20.4 ms rise
↘ 18.8 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 41 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (43 ms).
viewing angles
viewing angles
AnTuTu Benchmark v6 - Total Score
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
144426 Points ∼63% +452%
Xiaomi MiPad 2
73083 Points ∼32% +180%
Amazon Fire 7 2017
26141 Points ∼11%
Amazon Fire Tablet
26094 Points ∼11% 0%
Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 2016
22854 Points ∼10% -13%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
5432 Points ∼80% +132%
Amazon Fire 7 2017
2345 Points ∼34%
Work performance score
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
5608 Points ∼68% +60%
Xiaomi MiPad 2
5279 Points ∼64% +51%
Acer Iconia One 8
4739 Points ∼57% +35%
Amazon Fire 7 2017
3499 Points ∼42%
Amazon Fire Tablet
3480 Points ∼42% -1%
Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 2016
3095 Points ∼37% -12%
BaseMark OS II
Web
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
1007 Points ∼65% +103%
Xiaomi MiPad 2
952 Points ∼62% +92%
Acer Iconia One 8
837 Points ∼54% +68%
Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 2016
521 Points ∼34% +5%
Amazon Fire 7 2017
497 Points ∼32%
Amazon Fire Tablet
10 Points ∼1% -98%
Graphics
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
4941 Points ∼57% +2209%
Xiaomi MiPad 2
1609 Points ∼19% +652%
Acer Iconia One 8
692 Points ∼8% +223%
Amazon Fire Tablet
248 Points ∼3% +16%
Amazon Fire 7 2017
214 Points ∼2%
Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 2016
150 Points ∼2% -30%
Memory
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
1931 Points ∼44% +444%
Xiaomi MiPad 2
1379 Points ∼31% +288%
Acer Iconia One 8
765 Points ∼17% +115%
Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 2016
431 Points ∼10% +21%
Amazon Fire 7 2017
355 Points ∼8%
Amazon Fire Tablet
337 Points ∼8% -5%
System
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
3505 Points ∼53% +267%
Xiaomi MiPad 2
1921 Points ∼29% +101%
Acer Iconia One 8
1359 Points ∼21% +42%
Amazon Fire Tablet
978 Points ∼15% +2%
Amazon Fire 7 2017
955 Points ∼15%
Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 2016
923 Points ∼14% -3%
Overall
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
2409 Points ∼64% +433%
Xiaomi MiPad 2
1419 Points ∼37% +214%
Acer Iconia One 8
881 Points ∼23% +95%
Amazon Fire 7 2017
452 Points ∼12%
Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 2016
345 Points ∼9% -24%
Amazon Fire Tablet
167 Points ∼4% -63%
Geekbench 4.1
Compute RenderScript Score
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
7063 Points ∼83%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
4187 Points ∼26% +244%
Amazon Fire 7 2017
1216 Points ∼8%
64 Bit Single-Core Score
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
1745 Points ∼36% +290%
Amazon Fire 7 2017
448 Points ∼9%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
1798 Points ∼59%
Xiaomi MiPad 2
1572 Points ∼52%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
2943 Points ∼55%
Xiaomi MiPad 2
1261 Points ∼23%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1)
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
2578 Points ∼66%
Xiaomi MiPad 2
1319 Points ∼34%
Acer Iconia One 8
0 Points ∼0%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
1811 Points ∼60%
Xiaomi MiPad 2
1580 Points ∼52%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
4626 Points ∼60%
Xiaomi MiPad 2
1300 Points ∼17%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
3438 Points ∼69%
Xiaomi MiPad 2
1353 Points ∼27%
Acer Iconia One 8
0 Points ∼0%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
21886 Points ∼32% +196%
Xiaomi MiPad 2
20142 Points ∼29% +172%
Acer Iconia One 8
15430 Points ∼22% +109%
Amazon Fire Tablet
8881 Points ∼13% +20%
Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 2016
7790 Points ∼11% +5%
Amazon Fire 7 2017
7395 Points ∼11%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
34002 Points ∼7% +1094%
Xiaomi MiPad 2
27537 Points ∼6% +867%
Acer Iconia One 8
12471 Points ∼3% +338%
Amazon Fire Tablet
4136 Points ∼1% +45%
Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 2016
3146 Points ∼1% +10%
Amazon Fire 7 2017
2848 Points ∼1%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
30277 Points ∼15% +818%
Xiaomi MiPad 2
25460 Points ∼13% +672%
Acer Iconia One 8
13026 Points ∼7% +295%
Amazon Fire Tablet
4693 Points ∼2% +42%
Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 2016
3626 Points ∼2% +10%
Amazon Fire 7 2017
3299 Points ∼2%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
92 fps ∼7% +934%
Xiaomi MiPad 2
32 fps ∼2% +260%
Amazon Fire Tablet
9 fps ∼1% +1%
Amazon Fire 7 2017
8.9 fps ∼1%
Acer Iconia One 8
6 fps ∼0% -33%
Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 2016
4.2 fps ∼0% -53%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
59 fps ∼13% +354%
Acer Iconia One 8
24.4 fps ∼5% +88%
Amazon Fire Tablet
13 fps ∼3% 0%
Xiaomi MiPad 2
13 fps ∼3% 0%
Amazon Fire 7 2017
13 fps ∼3%
Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 2016
6.5 fps ∼1% -50%

Legend

 
Amazon Fire 7 2017 Mediatek MT8127, ARM Mali-450 MP4, 8 GB eMMC Flash
 
Amazon Fire Tablet Mediatek MT8127, ARM Mali-450 MP4, 8 GB eMMC Flash
 
Acer Iconia One 8 Intel Atom Z3735G, Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail), 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 2016 Spreadtrum SC7731, ARM Mali-400 MP2, 8 GB eMMC Flash
 
Xiaomi MiPad 2 Intel Atom x5-Z8500, Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail), 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825 Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 MSM8996, Qualcomm Adreno 530, 32 GB eMMC Flash
Octane V2 - Total Score
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
9531 Points ∼100% +368%
Xiaomi MiPad 2
7994 Points ∼84% +292%
Acer Iconia One 8
6110 Points ∼64% +200%
Amazon Fire Tablet
2326 Points ∼24% +14%
Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 2016
2300 Points ∼24% +13%
Amazon Fire 7 2017
2037 Points ∼21%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
132 Points ∼100% +230%
Acer Iconia One 8
95 Points ∼72% +138%
Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 2016
40 Points ∼30% 0%
Amazon Fire 7 2017
40 Points ∼30%
JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
Xiaomi MiPad 2
43.039 Points ∼100% +259%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
42.73 Points ∼99% +256%
Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 2016
14.5 Points ∼34% +21%
Amazon Fire Tablet
14.116 Points ∼33% +18%
Amazon Fire 7 2017
12.004 Points ∼28%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Amazon Fire 7 2017
17719.6 ms * ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 2016
15533.8 ms * ∼88% +12%
Amazon Fire Tablet
14186.5 ms * ∼80% +20%
Acer Iconia One 8
5579.6 ms * ∼31% +69%
Xiaomi MiPad 2
4420.4 ms * ∼25% +75%
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
2244.4 ms * ∼13% +87%

* ... smaller is better

Amazon Fire 7 2017Amazon Fire TabletAcer Iconia One 8Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 2016Xiaomi MiPad 2Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 SM-T825
AndroBench 3-5
22%
-12%
-14%
60%
120%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
27.74
29.19
5%
18.4
-34%
58.56
111%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
45.54
49.4
8%
21.41
-53%
76.39
68%
Random Write 4KB
6.03
11
82%
2.9
-52%
9.55
58%
13.96
132%
13.13
118%
Random Read 4KB
21.97
22
0%
17
-23%
21.95
0%
24.42
11%
45.82
109%
Sequential Write 256KB
34.1
37
9%
40
17%
28.95
-15%
56.37
65%
87.6
157%
Sequential Read 256KB
113.7
147
29%
126
11%
65.94
-42%
147.85
30%
288.58
154%
Max. Load
 39.3 °C37.3 °C37.5 °C 
 39.1 °C36.3 °C37.1 °C 
 39.1 °C37.5 °C34.7 °C 
Maximum: 39.3 °C
Average: 37.5 °C
30.5 °C31.1 °C39.9 °C
31.9 °C32.3 °C43.3 °C
31.4 °C32.3 °C42.5 °C
Maximum: 43.3 °C
Average: 35 °C
Power Supply (max.)  36.3 °C | Room Temperature 21.5 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2031.635.52525.436.13125.333.54032.934.25033.629.86331.639.28028.448.71002749.812520.8371602235.520021.330.125020.831.131521.241.440019.445.750019.552.563017.756.780017.962.2100017.865.9125017.370.6160017.473.1200016.772.1250017.269.7315018.266.9400017.967.9500017.666.9630017.766.8800017.870.11000017.966.91250018.160.81600018.249.2SPL3080N1.344.8median 17.9Amazon Fire 7 2017median 62.2Delta1.310.931.73832.431.73430.331.33427.824.131.727.828.627.22628.63838.639.43827.430.336.227.427.525.828.627.524.723.625.424.72622.521.32626.822.523.326.834.52422.534.54628.122.44656.136.121.356.160.241.518.460.26548.117.56568.452.117.568.469.853.317.269.873.556.516.873.574.658.317.374.676.959.417.476.975.558.916.675.572.154.417.372.172.754.917.672.774.255.917.674.27455.917.77480.662.617.480.682.464.617.782.472.254.317.972.262.544.218.162.55435.718.15487.870.229.887.871.624.61.371.6median 69.8Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 2016median 53.3median 17.7median 69.81210.31.61240.735.335.240.739.430.137.839.443.33028.443.346.727.733.846.747.535.639.547.545.426.934.345.445.524.627.345.544.626.330.844.64731.226.24752.943.623.852.956.552.122.956.560.452.122.460.463.854.519.963.866.557.120.466.572.163.818.772.174.667.517.774.677.86917.977.878.9701878.980.47117.880.483.873.51783.885.175.816.985.183.473.317.483.483.473.117.883.483.974.417.583.983.473.517.383.48575.617.38586.6771886.684.674.518.384.681.571.817.981.572.261.217.972.295.185.430.195.1110.763.21.4110.7median 78.9Xiaomi MiPad 2median 70median 17.9median 78.910.49.52.410.4hearing rangehide median Pink Noise
Amazon Fire 7 2017 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.04 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 8.1% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (26.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 79% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 14% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 21%, worst was 33%
Compared to all devices tested
» 73% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 21% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 22%, worst was 53%

Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 2016 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.76 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 34.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.6% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (25.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 76% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 17% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 21%, worst was 33%
Compared to all devices tested
» 70% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 23% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 22%, worst was 53%

Xiaomi MiPad 2 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (95.07 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.7% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.4% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (1.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 14% of all tested devices in this class were better, 14% similar, 72% worse
» The best had a delta of 7%, average was 21%, worst was 33%
Compared to all devices tested
» 24% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 71% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 22%, worst was 53%

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.05 / 0.19 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.97 / 2.68 / 2.69 Watt
Load midlight 4.26 / 4.64 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Amazon Fire 7 2017
2980 mAh
Amazon Fire Tablet
2980 mAh
Acer Iconia One 8
 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 2016
4000 mAh
Xiaomi MiPad 2
6190 mAh
Power Consumption
-13%
-16%
-35%
-124%
Idle Minimum *
0.97
1.12
-15%
0.8
18%
1.91
-97%
3.33
-243%
Idle Average *
2.68
3.06
-14%
3.1
-16%
3.59
-34%
5.01
-87%
Idle Maximum *
2.69
3.31
-23%
3.3
-23%
4.06
-51%
5.19
-93%
Load Average *
4.26
4.44
-4%
5.1
-20%
4.29
-1%
8.32
-95%
Load Maximum *
4.64
5.09
-10%
6.5
-40%
4.31
7%
9.33
-101%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
15h 41min
WiFi Surfing v1.3
8h 36min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
8h 31min
Load (maximum brightness)
3h 29min
Amazon Fire 7 2017
2980 mAh
Amazon Fire Tablet
2980 mAh
Acer Iconia One 8
 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 2016
4000 mAh
Xiaomi MiPad 2
6190 mAh
Battery Runtime
-17%
31%
36%
-18%
Reader / Idle
941
1257
34%
1353
44%
H.264
511
795
56%
513
0%
WiFi v1.3
516
428
-17%
742
44%
619
20%
421
-18%
Load
209
185
-11%
379
81%

Pros

+ 售价
+ IPS屏幕
+ 不错的电池续航
+ 坚实的机身品质

Cons

- 较弱的处理器和显卡
- 闪存缓慢
- 相机效果差
- 扬声器
In review: Amazon Fire 7 (2017). Review unit courtesy of Amazon Germany.
In review: Amazon Fire 7 (2017). Review unit courtesy of Amazon Germany.

考虑到仅仅49美元的低售价,Fire 7 (2017)可以算是一台超值的全面产品。我们希望它能够得到更大程度上的更新,不过遗憾的是,它依然搭配的是迟缓的处理器和闪存、低分辨率屏幕和仅1GB的内存。因此,尽管它的电池续航和色彩准确度有所改进,但这台平板电脑的整体性能仍然较弱。

最终每个人心中的疑问将是:Fire 7 (2017)的优势在哪?它的170ppi低分辨率屏幕显然不适合长时间阅读。而缺少性能也将会让游戏和甚至是上网都变得不那么流畅。如果前置扬声器的音响效果不那么差的话用它观看电影也将带来更多享受。当然,之前提到的所有用途Fire 7 (2017)都可以实现,但都需要用户相应做出一些妥协。

最新的亚马逊Fire 7平板电脑仍然只适合要求最低的用户。遗憾的是,亚马逊没能为它带来硬件更新。因此,Fire 7 (2017)最大的卖点依然是超低的价位。

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。 

Amazon Fire 7 2017 - 07/10/2017 v6
Marcus Herbrich

Chassis
73%
Keyboard
63 / 80 → 79%
Pointing Device
83%
Connectivity
23 / 65 → 36%
Weight
87 / 88 → 97%
Battery
90%
Display
81%
Games Performance
8 / 68 → 12%
Application Performance
25 / 76 → 33%
Temperature
88%
Noise
100%
Audio
52 / 91 → 57%
Camera
25 / 85 → 29%
Average
61%
77%
Tablet - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebookcheck中文版(NBC中国) > 评测 > 亚马逊 Fire 7 (2017) 平板电脑简短评测
Marcus Herbrich, 2017-07-22 (Update: 2017-07-22)