三星Galaxy A22 4G智能手机评测 - AMOLED在没有5G的中端智能手机中的应用
就像今天你很难想象曾经有没有LTE的智能手机一样,几年后你可能也找不到很多没有5G的智能手机。但在这一点上,三星奉行双管齐下的做法,提供其几款中端智能手机,一个版本为4G,另一个为5G。通过这种方式,那些不需要超高速移动连接的人仍然可以节省一些钱,或者他们可以吗?
好吧,如果你实际比较一下目前Galaxy A22 4G和 Galaxy A22 5G的价格,节省的钱最多是微不足道的。但至少我们在这次测试中更详细地评估的三星Galaxy A22 4G比它的5G兄弟姐妹更紧凑,还带来了AMOLED屏幕和相机的一些改进。那么这是一个真正的替代品吗?
Possible Competitors in Comparison
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Best Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
78.1 % | 08/2021 | Samsung Galaxy A22 4G Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2 | 186 g | 128 GB eMMC Flash | 6.40" | 1600x720 | |
79.6 % | 08/2021 | Samsung Galaxy A22 5G Dimensity 700, Mali-G57 MP2 | 203 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.60" | 2400x1080 | |
81.1 % | 08/2021 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 10S Helio G95, Mali-G76 MP4 | 178.8 g | 128 GB UFS 2.2 Flash | 6.43" | 2400x1080 | |
81.8 % | 09/2020 | Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC SD 732G, Adreno 618 | 215 g | 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
81.7 % | 04/2021 | Realme 8 Helio G95, Mali-G76 MP4 | 177 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.40" | 2400x1080 |
» 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
外壳 - 简单的塑料在Galaxy 智能手机
总的来说,这个箱子看起来比下面的箱子简单一些 Galaxy A22 5G,反光的后盖是由相当普通的塑料制成的,有白色、黑色和淡紫的颜色。这款箱子看起来相当坚固,材料的过渡也很干净。圆角的设计有助于Galaxy 智能手机拿在手里时感觉良好。
6.4英寸的智能手机明显比其5G版本更小、更轻,这应该有利于那些手小的人。然而,与 realme 8或 小米Redmi Note 10S,这个价位上也有更轻的智能手机。
设备 - 价格差异小
微型SD卡读卡器
在我们向microSD传输数据的测试中,三星Galaxy A22 4G的表现与它的5G兄弟姐妹持平,总体上相当快。然而,在跨平台磁盘测试(CPDT)中,其数值在对比设备领域中相当居中。
SD Card Reader - average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G (Angelbird V60) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G (Angelbird V60) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10S (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) |
Cross Platform Disk Test (CPDT)
软件--更新?也许...
通信和GNSS - 三星智能手机的种类不多
三星Galaxy A22 WLAN模块的标准被称为 "WiFi 5"。在通信速度方面,该智能手机的表现达到了同类水平。然而,它不提供MIMO,如 Poco X3小米的MIMO,它能够使用它的数据速率几乎翻倍。我们的测试装置的数据传输速度保持相对稳定,但随着与路由器的距离增加,信号强度迅速下降。
三星Galaxy A22 4G不提供5G,提供的LTE频率种类也很一般。那些经常到远方旅行的人应该确保他们在旅行目的地能够用智能手机接入移动互联网。Galaxy 智能手机的接收强度还可以,但绝对有一些智能手机在同一地点获得更高的信号质量。
Networking | |
iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC | |
Average of class Smartphone (16.9 - 1368, n=65, last 2 years) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
Realme 8 | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10S | |
iperf3 receive AX12 | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC | |
Average of class Smartphone (32.7 - 953, n=66, last 2 years) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
Realme 8 | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10S |
电话功能和语音质量 - 清晰度很一般
三星已经预装了自己的电话应用,它取代了谷歌的标准应用,其操作也同样直观。支持VoWiFi和VoLTE。
在通话过程中,使用内部听筒的最大音量时,我们对话伙伴的声音听起来有点夸张,并伴有其他噪音。我们自己也能用稍低的声音说话,但我们的声音听起来对我们的对话伙伴来说略显沉闷。
当使用内置扬声器的免提电话模式时,我们的对话伙伴听起来相当响亮,清晰度也可以接受。然而,我们不应该把声音压得太低,因为否则麦克风将无法记录。
照相机 - 带有OIS和微距镜头
在相机方面,如果你比较一下三星Galaxy A22 4G的指定设备和 Galaxy A22 5G,乍一看,你可能会认为它们有一个相同的相机系统。
然而,如果你仔细看看,你可能会看到一些差异:虽然Galaxy A22 4G也带来了4800万像素的摄像头,但它提供了光学图像稳定功能,这在5G版本中是没有的。此外,广角镜头的分辨率略高,还有一个专门的微距镜头,尽管它只有200万像素的分辨率。
因此,总的来说,只要你使用主摄像头,4G版本的相机系统甚至更灵活,更能防止模糊的结果。
根据不同的情况,用Galaxy A22 4G的主摄像头拍摄的照片与 A22 5G的照片相比显得非常不同。 Galaxy A22 5G.一般来说,它们的亮度略高。如果你聚焦在一个物体上,它的再现会更清晰一些,但如果你拍摄全景照片,结果会显得更模糊,尽管像素伪影没有5G型号那么明显。总的来说,这也是一款典型的价格级别的相机,并不真正突出,但在恶劣的光线条件和高对比度方面做得相当扎实。
由于其更高的分辨率,广角镜头确实能够拍摄出稍微详细的照片。然而,这仍然只使它更适合于没有放大太多的快照,因为很多细节会丢失。在镜头之间自动切换不可能放大几步,而是要直接手动切换。
视频最多能以全高清分辨率和30帧录制,与5G机型相比,这是个限制,因为5G机型至少可以实现2K。相反,自动对焦似乎更可靠。
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.
Hauptkamera BlumeHauptkamera UmgebungHauptkamera Low LightWeitwinkelobjektiv在实验室里对确定的光线条件下的记录进行评估,三星Galaxy A22 4G处于同类水平。乍一看,清晰度相当好,但在边缘处略有下降。色彩还原和对比度也显得很好。在弱光条件下,Galaxy A22 4G的照片比5G版本的照片照度稍好,但你仍然无法得到真正好的夜间照片。


配件和保修 - 大量的维修选择
除了手机之外,Galaxy 智能手机的包装盒还包括一条USB-C电缆和相应的充电器,以及一个SIM卡工具和各种文件。目前,三星在其网上商店没有提供任何针对该智能手机的配件。
保修期为24个月。三星提供了许多不同的选择,让智能手机得到维修,可以是现场维修或邮寄。你也可以在网上看到保修期外的标准维修选项https://www.samsung.com/us/support/service/.
输入设备和操作 - 一个快速传感器
显示屏 - AMOLED,但颜色较暗
与它的5G兄弟姐妹相比, Galaxy A22 4G版本的大优势可能是AMOLED屏幕。然而,这似乎是一个非常暗的显示屏,几乎没有比350cd/m²更亮的地方,因此不适合在户外使用它。
此外,在扩大的720p,分辨率明显低于全高清分辨率的Galaxy A22 5G和所有其他对比设备的全高清分辨率。当然,这种差异在6.4英寸的智能手机中并不像在30英寸或更大的电视中那样严重明显。然而,在直接比较中,稍显浑浊的图像是明显可见的。
|
Brightness Distribution: 92 %
Center on Battery: 349 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.87 | 0.55-29.43 Ø5.1
ΔE Greyscale 2.7 | 0.57-98 Ø5.4
140.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.07
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G Super AMOLED, 1600x720, 6.40 | Samsung Galaxy A22 5G IPS, 2400x1080, 6.60 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 10S AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.43 | Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC IPS, 2400x1080, 6.67 | Realme 8 Super AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.40 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | -4% | 64% | 45% | 44% | |
Brightness middle | 349 | 415 19% | 706 102% | 623 79% | 590 69% |
Brightness | 352 | 378 7% | 701 99% | 600 70% | 607 72% |
Brightness Distribution | 92 | 76 -17% | 98 7% | 93 1% | 92 0% |
Black Level * | 0.26 | 0.54 | |||
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 5.87 | 5.41 8% | 2.1 64% | 1.8 69% | 2.64 55% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 15.51 | 9.77 37% | 4.9 68% | 4.7 70% | 6.85 56% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.7 | 4.8 -78% | 1.5 44% | 3.3 -22% | 2.4 11% |
Gamma | 2.07 106% | 2.348 94% | 2.29 96% | 2.26 97% | 2.265 97% |
CCT | 6970 93% | 7748 84% | 6447 101% | 6712 97% | 6913 94% |
Contrast | 1596 | 1154 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM detected | 127.6 Hz | ||
The display backlight flickers at 127.6 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 127.6 Hz is very low, so the flickering may cause eyestrain and headaches after extended use. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 19035 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. |
Display Response Times
↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
---|---|---|
6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 3 ms rise | |
↘ 3 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. » 10 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (22.2 ms). | ||
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 3 ms rise | |
↘ 3 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 0.25 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 10 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (35.1 ms). |
性能--Galaxy 智能手机中的中端力量
这款联发科Helio G80是一个中端SoC,但对比设备都使用了更多最新和强大的SoC,尽管属于类似的价格范围。
那么,三星Galaxy A22 4G是否有点弱?并非如此。对于日常任务和许多应用程序来说,其性能是足够的,但你只是在其他地方获得更多的权力,以完成更多的任务,并行运行几个应用程序,或一个更流畅的系统。
在图形性能方面,这款智能手机也仍然落后。虽然乍一看,低分辨率的显示屏给人的印象是ARM Mali-G52 MP2做得相当好,但如果你看的是测试结果而不是屏幕,就会发现在公平竞争中,所有的对比设备都是领先的。
Geekbench 5.4 | |
Single-Core (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10S | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC | |
Realme 8 | |
Average Mediatek Helio G80 (300 - 387, n=11) | |
Average of class Smartphone (119 - 1885, n=237, last 2 years) | |
Multi-Core (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10S | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC | |
Realme 8 | |
Average Mediatek Helio G80 (790 - 1370, n=11) | |
Average of class Smartphone (473 - 5538, n=237, last 2 years) | |
Vulkan Score (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10S | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC | |
Realme 8 | |
Average Mediatek Helio G80 (1109 - 1203, n=10) | |
Average of class Smartphone (79 - 9992, n=173, last 2 years) | |
OpenCL Score (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10S | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC | |
Realme 8 | |
Average Mediatek Helio G80 (1100 - 1168, n=10) | |
Average of class Smartphone (368 - 10711, n=162, last 2 years) |
PCMark for Android | |
Work 3.0 (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10S | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC | |
Realme 8 | |
Average Mediatek Helio G80 (5589 - 8120, n=9) | |
Average of class Smartphone (4780 - 28378, n=226, last 2 years) | |
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC | |
Realme 8 | |
Average Mediatek Helio G80 (6168 - 8795, n=3) | |
Average of class Smartphone (5279 - 13282, n=26, last 2 years) |
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | |
T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10S | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC | |
Average Mediatek Helio G80 (39 - 59, n=6) | |
Average of class Smartphone (22 - 165, n=186, last 2 years) | |
1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10S | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC | |
Average Mediatek Helio G80 (41 - 44, n=6) | |
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 497, n=186, last 2 years) |
GFXBench 3.0 | |
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10S | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC | |
Average Mediatek Helio G80 (21 - 43, n=6) | |
Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 161, n=187, last 2 years) | |
1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10S | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC | |
Average Mediatek Helio G80 (23 - 24, n=6) | |
Average of class Smartphone (9.2 - 331, n=188, last 2 years) |
GFXBench 3.1 | |
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10S | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC | |
Average Mediatek Helio G80 (13 - 31, n=6) | |
Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 143, n=188, last 2 years) | |
1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10S | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC | |
Average Mediatek Helio G80 (14 - 16, n=6) | |
Average of class Smartphone (6.2 - 223, n=188, last 2 years) |
Antutu v9 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10S | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC | |
Average Mediatek Helio G80 (204040 - 232228, n=5) | |
Average of class Smartphone (111952 - 1322448, n=162, last 2 years) |
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10S | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC | |
Average Mediatek Helio G80 (177851 - 181928, n=4) | |
Average of class Smartphone (101336 - 725649, n=39, last 2 years) |
AImark - Score v2.x (sort by value) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10S | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC | |
Average Mediatek Helio G80 (6865 - 7292, n=4) | |
Average of class Smartphone (1043 - 286905, n=119, last 2 years) |
在浏览器基准测试中,该智能手机的结果在同类产品中属于平均水平。在实践中,网站的加载时间可能稍长,特别是在滚动时,你必须短暂地等待图片。
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (17.3 - 282, n=164, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC (Chrome 85) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G (Chrome 92) | |
Average Mediatek Helio G80 (29 - 38.7, n=7) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G (Chrome 92) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10S (Chrome 91) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (27.5 - 414, n=77, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC (Chrome 85) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G (Chrome 92) | |
Average Mediatek Helio G80 (54 - 60.8, n=6) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G (Chrome 92) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10S (Chrome 91) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Average of class Smartphone (13.3 - 375, n=154, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC (Chrome 85) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G (Chome 92) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G (Chome 92) | |
Average Mediatek Helio G80 (21.8 - 30, n=7) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10S (Chrome 91) |
WebXPRT 3 - --- | |
Average of class Smartphone (34 - 292, n=145, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC (Chrome 85) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G (Chrome 92) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G (Chrome 92) | |
Average Mediatek Helio G80 (43 - 54, n=6) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10S (Chrome 91) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 74261, n=193, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC (Chrome 85) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G (Chrome 92) | |
Average Mediatek Helio G80 (10432 - 12744, n=8) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G (Chrome 92) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10S (Chrome 91) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 10S (Chrome 91) | |
Average Mediatek Helio G80 (3227 - 4076, n=7) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G (Chrome 92) | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC (Chrome 85) | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G (Chrome 92) | |
Average of class Smartphone (414 - 10031, n=167, last 2 years) |
* ... smaller is better
你必须满足于Galaxy A22 4G中较慢的eMMC内存。在存储速度方面,这已经不足以跟上同价位的设备了。
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G | Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | Xiaomi Redmi Note 10S | Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC | Realme 8 | Average 128 GB eMMC Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | 9% | 65% | 39% | 55% | -9% | 235% | |
Sequential Read 256KB | 297.7 | 300.5 1% | 498.8 68% | 506 70% | 526 77% | 289 ? -3% | 1186 ? 298% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 183 | 210.3 15% | 372 103% | 173.1 -5% | 187.8 3% | 193.5 ? 6% | 753 ? 311% |
Random Read 4KB | 101.2 | 118 17% | 110.5 9% | 123.4 22% | 144 42% | 82.7 ? -18% | 208 ? 106% |
Random Write 4KB | 66.9 | 69.2 3% | 121 81% | 112.6 68% | 133 99% | 53 ? -21% | 218 ? 226% |
游戏--也有可能超过60帧
当游戏时,Galaxy A22 4G证明,即使在这个价格级别的2D游戏中,明显超过60帧是很有可能的。"Armajet"的平均运行速度为67 fps,虽然比A22 4G的运行速度要低得多。 Galaxy A22 5G,但仍然超过了许多其他设备,这些设备只是没有为高帧数进行优化。在这方面,游戏的发行商与智能手机制造商面临着类似的挑战。
在"PUBG Mobile"中,我们看到了这个价格级别的通常行为:在低细节水平下,有时可以达到40帧,但除此之外,大多数游戏运行在30帧,还不时出现一些停顿。我们用GameBench测量帧率。.
在控制游戏方面,Galaxy A22 4G打出了一个体面的数字。触摸屏的反应迅速而可靠,位置传感器也很好地完成了工作。
排放 - 温暖,但没有节制
温度
3DMark | |
Wild Life Stress Test Stability | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC | |
Realme 8 | |
Wild Life Extreme Stress Test | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G | |
Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC |
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 45.4 °C / 114 F, compared to the average of 34.9 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 54.6 °C for the class Smartphone.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 45.4 °C / 114 F, compared to the average of 33.7 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 24.1 °C / 75 F, compared to the device average of 32.6 °C / 91 F.
演讲者
Galaxy 智能手机的扬声器产生的音量比5G版本的A22略低,但这仍足以满足日常使用。声音频谱略微过度强调了高频,正如你在这个价格级别所期望的那样。然而,即使在最大音量下,它仍然不会让耳朵听起来很夸张。
你可以通过蓝牙或3.5毫米音频端口连接外部扬声器或耳机。虽然这样做没有任何问题,但对于无线传输来说,没有支持aptX编解码器来通过蓝牙改善声音。你可以通过听力测试将音频输出调整到你的个人听力。
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.2% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.9% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 58% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 31% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 74% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 19% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%
Samsung Galaxy A22 5G audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 31.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.3% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.8% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 62% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 28% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 23%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 77% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 18% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 20%, worst was 65%
电池寿命--充电缓慢Galaxy
消耗功率
就其功耗而言,智能手机在一个相对狭窄的范围内运行。因此,当你不经常使用它时,它往往更耗电,而当有高负荷时,则相当高效。
Off / Standby | ![]() ![]() |
Idle | ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Load |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Samsung Galaxy A22 4G 5000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A22 5G 5000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 10S 5000 mAh | Xiaomi Poco X3 NFC 5160 mAh | Average Mediatek Helio G80 | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | 12% | 17% | -23% | -9% | 2% | |
Idle Minimum * | 1.5 | 0.9 40% | 0.69 54% | 0.93 38% | 1.044 ? 30% | 0.88 ? 41% |
Idle Average * | 2.1 | 1.3 38% | 1.46 30% | 2.47 -18% | 2.01 ? 4% | 1.48 ? 30% |
Idle Maximum * | 2.5 | 1.7 32% | 1.5 40% | 2.51 -0% | 2.35 ? 6% | 1.695 ? 32% |
Load Average * | 2.9 | 3.8 -31% | 3.67 -27% | 5.62 -94% | 4.19 ? -44% | 4.27 ? -47% |
Load Maximum * | 4.9 | 5.8 -18% | 5.58 -14% | 6.93 -41% | 7.02 ? -43% | 7.1 ? -45% |
* ... smaller is better
Power Consumption: Geekbench (150 cd/m²)
Power Consumption: GFXBench (150 cd/m²)
电池寿命
在电池寿命方面,Galaxy A22的4G和5G版本之间几乎没有任何区别。虽然两者都能从其5000毫安时的电池中获得大量的电池寿命,但它们的优势在于不同的场景中。在我们的WLAN测试中,Galaxy A22 4G的持续时间略长,而Galaxy A22 5G在处理更苛刻的任务时表现出更多的耐力。然而,这些差异总体上是非常小的。在整体比较中,两款智能手机都做得相当好。
另一方面,三星在充电方面已经不太跟得上时代了。Galaxy A22 4G的充电功率最大为15瓦,这意味着有时你可能需要等待2个多小时才能将电池完全充电。