三星Galaxy Note10智能手机评测：还是最强商务手机吗？

Name: Samsung Galaxy Note10
Brand: Samsung

Galaxy Note 10仅仅是Note 10+的较小版本，还是不止于此？ 嗯，较小的电池，屏幕，RAM和存储都可以说明这一点，但Note 10不仅仅是缩小的Note 10+。S Pen仍应有助于Note 10吸引商业用户，因为它也会比Note 10+便宜。在此评测中继续阅读，以了解我们对今年较小型号Galaxy Note的看法。

Florian Schmitt, 👁 Florian Schmitt (translated by Zewei Shen), Published 11/04/2019 🇺🇸 🇩🇪 ...

Android ARM Galaxy Note Smartphone Touchscreen

Test device courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de

Download your licensed rating image as PNG / SVG

Samsung Galaxy Note10 (Galaxy Note Series)

Processor

Samsung Exynos 9825 8 x 1.9 - 2.7 GHz, Exynos M3 / Cortex-A55

Graphics adapter

ARM Mali-G76 MP12

Memory

8 GB

Display

6.30 inch 19:9, 2280 x 1080 pixel 400 PPI, 电容屏, 10点触控, native pen support, Dynamic AMOLED, Gorilla Glass, 2.5D curved, glossy: yes, HDR

Storage

256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash, 256 GB

, 236 GB free

Connections

1 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, Audio Connections: USB Type-C, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: 加速计，气压计，指南针，陀螺仪，接近传感器

Networking

802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/ax = Wi-Fi 6/), Bluetooth 5.0, 2G: Bands 2, 3, 5, 8. 3G: Bands 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 34, 39. 4G: Bands 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 20, 28, 38, 39, 40, 41., Dual SIM, LTE, GPS

Size

height x width x depth (in mm): 7.9 x 151 x 71.8

Battery

3500 mAh Lithium-Ion

Charging

wireless charging, fast charging / Quickcharge

Operating System

Android 9.0 Pie

Camera

Primary Camera: 12 MPix ，f / 1.5-f / 2.4，双像素相位检测自动对焦（PDAF），OIS，LED闪光灯，视频高达2160p / 60 FPS。 12.0 MP远摄镜头，f / 2.1，PDAF，OIS。 16.0 MP超广角镜头，f / 2.2
Secondary Camera: 10 MPix 双像素自动对焦，80°，f / 1.9。 8 MPix，RGB深度，固定焦距，90°，f / 2.2

Additional features

Speakers: 混合立体声扬声器, Keyboard: 虚拟, 快速充电器，USB Type-C电缆，S-Pen，SIM工具，S-Pen使用指南，USB Type-C耳机，适配器, Game Launcher, Galaxy Store, Samsung Global Goals, Samsung Health, PENUP, Smart Things, 24 Months Warranty, LTE速度：下载-LTE-Advanced Pro Cat.20 8CA 2 Gbps；上传-Cat.20 3CA 316 Mbps。 SAR值：身体– 1.523 W / kg，头部– 0.209 W / kg。 ANT +; IP68认证。, fanless, waterproof

Weight

168 g, Power Supply: 71 g

Price

949 Euro

Links

Samsung notebook section

Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

see all specifications

Size Comparison

OnePlus 7 Pro Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Huawei Mate 20 Pro Apple iPhone Xs Max Samsung Galaxy Note10 DIN A6 ❌

Networking
iperf3 transmit AX12
Huawei Mate 20 Pro Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	696 (647^min - 714^max) MBit/s +58%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	663 (289^min - 805^max) MBit/s +51%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	650 (6^min - 792^max) MBit/s +48%
Apple iPhone Xs Max A12 Bionic GPU, A12 Bionic, 64 GB eMMC Flash	602 MBit/s +37%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Mali-G72 MP18, Exynos 9810, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	485 MBit/s +10%
OnePlus 7 Pro Adreno 640, SD 855, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	471 (438^min - 506^max) MBit/s +7%
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Mali-G76 MP12, Exynos 9825, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	440 (245^min - 489^max) MBit/s
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Adreno 640, SD 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	389 (366^min - 444^max) MBit/s -12%
iperf3 receive AX12
Huawei Mate 20 Pro Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	1001 (209^min - 1106^max) MBit/s +157%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	615 (532^min - 642^max) MBit/s +58%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	491 (100^min - 534^max) MBit/s +26%
Apple iPhone Xs Max A12 Bionic GPU, A12 Bionic, 64 GB eMMC Flash	624 MBit/s +60%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Mali-G72 MP18, Exynos 9810, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	485 MBit/s +24%
OnePlus 7 Pro Adreno 640, SD 855, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	467 (375^min - 519^max) MBit/s +20%
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Mali-G76 MP12, Exynos 9825, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	390 (294^min - 447^max) MBit/s
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Adreno 640, SD 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	383 (242^min - 434^max) MBit/s -2%
Average of class Smartphone (last 2 years)	376 MBit/s -4%

Samsung Galaxy Note10; iperf3 receive AX12; iperf 3.1.3: Ø390 (294-447)

Samsung Galaxy Note10; iperf3 transmit AX12; iperf 3.1.3: Ø440 (245-489)

GPS test: Samsung Galaxy Note 10 - Overview

GPS test: Samsung Galaxy Note 10 - Bridge

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 1 Scene 2 Scene 3

click to load images

Samsung Galaxy Note 10

Apple iPhone XS Max

OnePlus 6T

Olympus E-M10 II

click to load images

Samsung Galaxy Note 10

Apple iPhone XS Max

OnePlus 6T

Olympus E-M10 II

click to load images

Samsung Galaxy Note 10

Apple iPhone XS Max

OnePlus 6T

Olympus E-M10 II

Photographed using the standard rear-facing camera

Photographed using the ultra-wide-angle lens

ColorChecker Samsung Galaxy Note10: 11.45 ∆E min: 1.73 - max: 21.65 ∆E

ColorChecker Passport: The lower half of each area of colour displays the reference colour

A photo of our ColorChecker Passport chart at 1 lux


723 cd/m²	739 cd/m²	794 cd/m²
735 cd/m²	764 cd/m²	791 cd/m²
748 cd/m²	754 cd/m²	767 cd/m²

Distribution of brightness

tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2

Maximum: 794 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 757.2 cd/m² Minimum: 1.9 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 91 %
Center on Battery: 764 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 2.66 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 3.2 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
97.1% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.073

	Samsung Galaxy Note10 Dynamic AMOLED, 2280x1080, 6.30	Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.40	OnePlus 7 Pro AMOLED, 3120x1440, 6.67	Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.39	Huawei Mate 20 Pro OLED, 3120x1440, 6.30	Apple iPhone Xs Max OLED, 2688x1242, 6.50
Screen		-33%	19%	7%	15%	17%
Brightness middle	764	499 -35%	586 -23%	594 -22%	576 -25%	656 -14%
Brightness	757	506 -33%	584 -23%	607 -20%	582 -23%	659 -13%
Brightness Distribution	91	96 5%	97 7%	91 0%	90 -1%	88 -3%
Black Level *
Colorchecker dE 2000 *	2.66	4.62 -74%	1.39 48%	1.51 43%	1.3 51%	1.7 36%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *	5.65	10.91 -93%	2.7 52%	4.27 24%	3.5 38%	2.8 50%
Greyscale dE 2000 *	3.2	2.2 31%	1.6 50%	2.6 19%	1.6 50%	1.7 47%
Gamma	2.073 ^106%	2.103 ^105%	2.243 ^98%	2.219 ^99%	2.18 ^101%	1.998 ^110%
CCT	6326 ^103%	6115 ^106%	6672 ^97%	6390 ^102%	6561 ^99%	6487 ^100%

* ... smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

ℹ

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

236 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 236 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 236 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below.

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17915 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured.

Display Response Times

ℹ

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
8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 5 ms rise
8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 3 ms fall
The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 17 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21.5 ms).
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 3 ms rise
8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 5 ms fall
The screen shows fast response rates in our tests and should be suited for gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.2 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 15 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (33.7 ms).

Geekbench 4.4
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	4551 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	3698 Points -19%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	3472 Points -24%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	3429 Points -25%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	3378 Points -26%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	4774 Points +5%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (4549 - 4551, n=2)	4550 Points 0%
Average of class Smartphone (934 - 9574, n=91, last 2 years)	5228 Points +15%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	10484 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	8874 Points -15%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	10812 Points +3%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	10976 Points +5%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	10024 Points -4%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	11244 Points +7%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (10367 - 10484, n=2)	10426 Points -1%
Average of class Smartphone (2630 - 26990, n=91, last 2 years)	14045 Points +34%
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	10515 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	9059 Points -14%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	7470 Points -29%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	8938 Points -15%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (10515 - 11300, n=2)	10908 Points +4%
Average of class Smartphone (2053 - 18432, n=72, last 2 years)	10872 Points +3%

PCMark for Android
Work performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	11011 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	5960 Points -46%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	11766 Points +7%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	11167 Points +1%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	12535 Points +14%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (11011 - 11813, n=2)	11412 Points +4%
Average of class Smartphone (10884 - 19297, n=2, last 2 years)	15091 Points +37%
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	8801 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	5184 Points -41%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	9974 Points +13%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	9296 Points +6%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	9225 Points +5%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (8801 - 9027, n=2)	8914 Points +1%
Average of class Smartphone (9101 - 12871, n=4, last 2 years)	10872 Points +24%

3DMark
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	53140 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	29994 Points -44%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	64389 Points +21%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	63969 Points +20%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	57047 Points +7%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	77599 Points +46%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (53140 - 54233, n=2)	53687 Points +1%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	65614 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	36190 Points -45%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	106829 Points +63%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	103955 Points +58%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	67730 Points +3%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	159735 Points +143%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (65614 - 66142, n=2)	65878 Points 0%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	31908 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	18756 Points -41%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	26936 Points -16%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	27278 Points -15%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	36755 Points +15%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	27717 Points -13%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (31908 - 33268, n=2)	32588 Points +2%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	5096 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	4008 Points -21%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	7501 Points +47%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	5478 Points +7%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	4996 Points -2%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	5205 Points +2%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (4502 - 5096, n=2)	4799 Points -6%
Average of class Smartphone (712 - 7285, n=50, last 2 years)	3766 Points -26%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	5732 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	4826 Points -16%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	9845 Points +72%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	6325 Points +10%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	5305 Points -7%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	7055 Points +23%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (5043 - 5732, n=2)	5388 Points -6%
Average of class Smartphone (618 - 9451, n=50, last 2 years)	4186 Points -27%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	3670 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	2515 Points -31%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	4091 Points +11%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	3726 Points +2%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	4150 Points +13%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	2713 Points -26%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (3273 - 3670, n=2)	3472 Points -5%
Average of class Smartphone (1093 - 4525, n=50, last 2 years)	3082 Points -16%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	5048 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	4124 Points -18%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	7955 Points +58%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	5460 Points +8%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	5456 Points +8%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	6667 Points +32%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (4618 - 5048, n=2)	4833 Points -4%
Average of class Smartphone (704 - 23024, n=114, last 2 years)	9351 Points +85%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	5605 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	4904 Points -13%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	10420 Points +86%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	6730 Points +20%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	5854 Points +4%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	10374 Points +85%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (5083 - 5605, n=2)	5344 Points -5%
Average of class Smartphone (607 - 45492, n=113, last 2 years)	16352 Points +192%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	3746 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	2649 Points -29%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	4352 Points +16%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	3288 Points -12%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	4407 Points +18%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	2961 Points -21%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (3498 - 3746, n=2)	3622 Points -3%
Average of class Smartphone (1075 - 8749, n=113, last 2 years)	4426 Points +18%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	5003 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	3353 Points -33%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	5581 Points +12%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	5475 Points +9%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	4201 Points -16%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	3544 Points -29%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (4940 - 5003, n=2)	4972 Points -1%
Average of class Smartphone (286 - 7890, n=103, last 2 years)	2770 Points -45%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	5659 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	3673 Points -35%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	6248 Points +10%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	6325 Points +12%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	4206 Points -26%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	3726 Points -34%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (5659 - 5712, n=2)	5686 Points 0%
Average of class Smartphone (240 - 9814, n=103, last 2 years)	2769 Points -51%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	3559 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	2569 Points -28%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	4063 Points +14%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	3724 Points +5%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	4183 Points +18%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	3027 Points -15%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (3353 - 3559, n=2)	3456 Points -3%
Average of class Smartphone (858 - 4679, n=103, last 2 years)	3166 Points -11%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	5300 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	3450 Points -35%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	6270 Points +18%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	5440 Points +3%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	4275 Points -19%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	4121 Points -22%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (5143 - 5300, n=2)	5222 Points -1%
Average of class Smartphone (317 - 20131, n=180, last 2 years)	6789 Points +28%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	6087 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	3797 Points -38%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	7115 Points +17%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	6739 Points +11%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	4250 Points -30%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	4828 Points -21%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (6036 - 6087, n=2)	6062 Points 0%
Average of class Smartphone (267 - 33376, n=179, last 2 years)	9811 Points +61%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	3649 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	2613 Points -28%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	4429 Points +21%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	3280 Points -10%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	4364 Points +20%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	2723 Points -25%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (3389 - 3649, n=2)	3519 Points -4%
Average of class Smartphone (938 - 8480, n=179, last 2 years)	4236 Points +16%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	4921 Points
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	4969 Points +1%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	4548 Points -8%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (4713 - 4921, n=2)	4817 Points -2%
Average of class Smartphone (365 - 6439, n=97, last 2 years)	2687 Points -45%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	6342 Points
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	5794 Points -9%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	5702 Points -10%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (6186 - 6342, n=2)	6264 Points -1%
Average of class Smartphone (298 - 8601, n=97, last 2 years)	2871 Points -55%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	2758 Points
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	3317 Points +20%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	2657 Points -4%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (2571 - 2758, n=2)	2665 Points -3%
Average of class Smartphone (1667 - 3525, n=97, last 2 years)	2676 Points -3%

GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	55 fps
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	60 fps +9%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	60 fps +9%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	69 fps +25%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	61 fps +11%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	60 fps +9%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (55 - 58, n=2)	56.5 fps +3%
Average of class Smartphone (22 - 165, n=183, last 2 years)	84.6 fps +54%
1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	50 fps
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	146 fps +192%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	166 fps +232%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	167 fps +234%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	120 fps +140%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	226 fps +352%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (50 - 95, n=2)	72.5 fps +45%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 791, n=183, last 2 years)	247 fps +394%

GFXBench 3.0
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	57 fps
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	47 fps -18%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	55 fps -4%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	59 fps +4%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	42 fps -26%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	59 fps +4%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (56 - 57, n=2)	56.5 fps -1%
Average of class Smartphone (6.8 - 165, n=185, last 2 years)	72.2 fps +27%
1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	69 fps
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	76 fps +10%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	101 fps +46%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	90 fps +30%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	73 fps +6%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	107 fps +55%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (69 - 89, n=2)	79 fps +14%
Average of class Smartphone (9.2 - 363, n=185, last 2 years)	140.6 fps +104%

GFXBench 3.1
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	45 fps
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	25 fps -44%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	36 fps -20%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	51 fps +13%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	26 fps -42%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	58.9 fps +31%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (36 - 45, n=2)	40.5 fps -10%
Average of class Smartphone (3.7 - 158, n=185, last 2 years)	60.9 fps +35%
1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	47 fps
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	45 fps -4%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	71 fps +51%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	62 fps +32%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	29 fps -38%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	69.3 fps +47%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (47 - 65, n=2)	56 fps +19%
Average of class Smartphone (6.2 - 279, n=185, last 2 years)	99 fps +111%

GFXBench
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	21 fps
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	15 fps -29%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	21 fps 0%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	41 fps +95%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	16 fps -24%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	31 fps +48%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (18 - 21, n=2)	19.5 fps -7%
Average of class Smartphone (5 - 117, n=185, last 2 years)	43.4 fps +107%
1920x1080 Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	21 fps
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	28 fps +33%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	42 fps +100%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	36 fps +71%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	31 fps +48%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	40 fps +90%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (21 - 28, n=2)	24.5 fps +17%
Average of class Smartphone (2.9 - 166, n=185, last 2 years)	59.9 fps +185%
on screen Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	35 fps
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	23 fps -34%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	36 fps +3%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	18 fps -49%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	47 fps +34%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (27 - 35, n=2)	31 fps -11%
Average of class Smartphone (3.6 - 123, n=225, last 2 years)	44 fps +26%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	38 fps
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	42 fps +11%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	42 fps +11%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	33 fps -13%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	36.8 fps -3%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (38 - 48, n=2)	43 fps +13%
Average of class Smartphone (2.3 - 229, n=225, last 2 years)	64.5 fps +70%
on screen Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	29 fps
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	15 fps -48%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	17 fps -41%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	19 fps -34%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	32.1 fps +11%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (17 - 29, n=2)	23 fps -21%
Average of class Smartphone (2.8 - 118, n=225, last 2 years)	32.9 fps +13%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	18 fps
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	16 fps -11%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	24 fps +33%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	13 fps -28%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	16.3 fps -9%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (18 - 18, n=2)	18 fps 0%
Average of class Smartphone (0.85 - 94, n=225, last 2 years)	25.7 fps +43%

Basemark GPU 1.1
1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	39.73 fps
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	22.84 fps -43%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	36.29 fps -9%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	25.57 (7.38^min - 46.96^max) fps -36%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (39.1 - 39.7, n=2)	39.4 fps -1%
Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	37.32 fps
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	15.51 fps -58%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	22.73 fps -39%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	16.92 (6.06^min - 28.78^max) fps -55%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (27.5 - 37.3, n=2)	32.4 fps -13%
1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	33.73 fps
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	29.4 fps -13%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	37.3 fps +11%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	29.12 (9.74^min - 74.17^max) fps -14%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (33.4 - 33.7, n=2)	33.6 fps 0%

AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	347082 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	236552 Points -32%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	369294 Points +6%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	372734 Points +7%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	300617 Points -13%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	302955 Points -13%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (347082 - 347229, n=2)	347156 Points 0%

VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	4996 Score
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	2327 Score -53%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	4969 Score -1%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	5025 Score +1%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (4985 - 4996, n=2)	4991 Score 0%
Average of class Smartphone (2523 - 10071, n=12, last 2 years)	5985 Score +20%

BaseMark OS II
Overall (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	4889 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	3110 Points -36%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	4982 Points +2%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	4045 Points -17%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	4687 Points -4%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	4895 Points 0%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (4637 - 4889, n=2)	4763 Points -3%
Average of class Smartphone (411 - 11438, n=165, last 2 years)	5745 Points +18%
System (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	8014 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	6137 Points -23%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	9143 Points +14%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	7423 Points -7%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	8604 Points +7%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	11675 Points +46%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (7965 - 8014, n=2)	7990 Points 0%
Average of class Smartphone (2376 - 16475, n=165, last 2 years)	9678 Points +21%
Memory (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	4598 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	2068 Points -55%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	5243 Points +14%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	3922 Points -15%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	6283 Points +37%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	1815 Points -61%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (4598 - 4646, n=2)	4622 Points +1%
Average of class Smartphone (670 - 12716, n=165, last 2 years)	6250 Points +36%
Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	9465 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	6506 Points -31%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	9421 Points 0%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	8700 Points -8%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	6273 Points -34%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	15659 Points +65%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (9092 - 9465, n=2)	9279 Points -2%
Average of class Smartphone (697 - 58651, n=165, last 2 years)	14101 Points +49%
Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	1638 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	1132 Points -31%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	1364 Points -17%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192	1076 Points -34%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	1424 Points -13%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	1731 Points +6%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (1374 - 1638, n=2)	1506 Points -8%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 2145, n=165, last 2 years)	1494 Points -9%

Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10 Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192	1976 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144	1481 Points -25%
OnePlus 7 Pro Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288	1425 Points -28%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144	1571 Points -20%
Apple iPhone Xs Max Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096	2407 Points +22%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 ()	1976 Points 0%
Average of class Smartphone (177 - 6114, n=58, last 2 years)	2240 Points +13%

Jetstream 2 | Speedometer 2.0 | WebXPRT 3 | Octane V2 | Mozilla Kraken 1.1

Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (13.8 - 351, n=173, last 2 years)	106.1 Points +121%
OnePlus 7 Pro (Chrome 74)	62.5 Points +30%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Chrome 75)	58.7 Points +22%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 74)	48.44 Points +1%
Samsung Galaxy Note10 (Chrome 76)	47.97 Points
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (42.7 - 48, n=2)	45.3 Points -6%

Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Average of class Smartphone (14.9 - 445, n=157, last 2 years)	107.1 runs/min +79%
OnePlus 7 Pro (Chome 74)	61.5 runs/min +3%
Samsung Galaxy Note10 (Chome 76)	59.7 runs/min
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 ()	59.7 runs/min 0%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 71)	58.6 runs/min -2%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Chrome 75)	42.5 runs/min -29%

WebXPRT 3 - Overall
Apple iPhone Xs Max (Safari 12)	155 Points +60%
Average of class Smartphone (39 - 304, n=122, last 2 years)	133.1 Points +37%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69)	124 Points +28%
OnePlus 7 Pro (Chrome 74)	111 Points +14%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (97 - 118, n=2)	107.5 Points +11%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Chrome 75)	107 Points +10%
Samsung Galaxy Note10 (Chrome 76)	97 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 (Chrome 68)	72 Points -26%

Octane V2 - Total Score
Apple iPhone Xs Max (Safari 12)	43114 Points +128%
Average of class Smartphone (4633 - 89112, n=211, last 2 years)	33640 Points +78%
OnePlus 7 Pro (Chrome 74)	24730 Points +31%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69)	23285 Points +23%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Chrome 75)	20598 Points +9%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (18908 - 19135, n=2)	19022 Points +1%
Samsung Galaxy Note10 (Chrome 76)	18908 Points
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 (Chrome 68)	14663 Points -22%

Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 (Chrome 68)	2710 ms * -9%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (2478 - 2528, n=2)	2503 ms * -1%
Samsung Galaxy Note10 (Chrome 76)	2478 ms *
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Chrome 75)	2334 ms * +6%
OnePlus 7 Pro (Chrome 74)	1965 ms * +21%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69)	1952 ms * +21%
Average of class Smartphone (388 - 9999, n=173, last 2 years)	1595 ms * +36%
Apple iPhone Xs Max (Safari 12)	603 ms * +76%

* ... smaller is better

	Samsung Galaxy Note10	Samsung Galaxy Note 9	OnePlus 7 Pro	Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro	Huawei Mate 20 Pro	Average 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash	Average of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5		-58%	-33%	-41%	-37%	2%	40%
Sequential Read 256KB	1478	805 -46%	1468 -1%	809 -45%	853 -42%	1573 ?(983 - 1789, n=21) 6%	1505 ?(226 - 4512, n=215, last 2 years) 2%
Sequential Write 256KB	590	196 -67%	387 -34%	196.9 -67%	196.4 -67%	559 ?(387 - 818, n=21) -5%	1112 ?(57.5 - 3678, n=215, last 2 years) 88%
Random Read 4KB	194.2	134 -31%	174.1 -10%	142.5 -27%	157.4 -19%	209 ?(168.5 - 265, n=21) 8%	247 ?(22.2 - 543, n=215, last 2 years) 27%
Random Write 4KB	191.9	21 -89%	24.8 -87%	148.5 -23%	157.8 -18%	186.4 ?(24.8 - 272, n=21) -3%	271 ?(13 - 709, n=215, last 2 years) 41%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard		77 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)			83.2 ?(Huawei NanoSD 128 GB)	70.6 ?(34.7 - 82.5, n=5)
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard		66.7 ?(Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)			72.4 ?(Huawei NanoSD 128 GB)	59.8 ?(30.7 - 71.7, n=5)

Samsung Galaxy Note10; Arena of Valor; min; 1.30.2.4: Ø59.9 (59-60)

Samsung Galaxy Note10; Arena of Valor; high HD; 1.30.2.4: Ø60 (59-60)

Samsung Galaxy Note10; Asphalt 9: Legends; Standard / low; 1.7.3a: Ø30 (28-31)

Samsung Galaxy Note10; Asphalt 9: Legends; High Quality; 1.7.3a: Ø30 (29-31)

Samsung Galaxy Note10; Shadow Fight 3; minimal; 1.19.0: Ø59.7 (56-60)

Samsung Galaxy Note10; Shadow Fight 3; high; 1.19.0: Ø59.1 (51-60)

Max. Load

Idle


44.9 °C	43.4 °C	39.7 °C
45.7 °C	43.5 °C	39.7 °C
45.9 °C	43.4 °C	39.6 °C

Maximum: 45.9 °C
Average: 42.9 °C


36.9 °C	40.8 °C	40.2 °C
37.5 °C	41.7 °C	41.9 °C
37.4 °C	41.9 °C	43.1 °C

Maximum: 43.1 °C
Average: 40.2 °C

Power Supply (max.) 35.7 °C | Room Temperature 21.8 °C | Voltcraft IR-260

(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 42.9 °C / 109 F, compared to the average of 32.7 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 45.9 °C / 115 F, compared to the average of 35 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 56 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 43.1 °C / 110 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 31.1 °C / 88 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.

Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)

Samsung Galaxy Note10 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 22.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.9% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.7% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (8.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 29% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 62% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 50% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 42% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Samsung Galaxy Note 9 audio analysis

(-) | not very loud speakers (71.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 15.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.9% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.6% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 4% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 93% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 21% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 74% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%

Power Consumption

Off / Standby	0 / 0.25 Watt
Idle	0.9 / 1.2 / 2 Watt
Load	7.7 / 10.5 Watt


Key: min: , med: , max: Metrahit Energy Currently we use the Metrahit Energy, a professional single phase power quality and energy measurement digital multimeter, for our measurements. Find out more about it here. All of our test methods can be found here.

	Samsung Galaxy Note10 3500 mAh	Samsung Galaxy Note 9 4000 mAh	OnePlus 7 Pro 4000 mAh	Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro 4000 mAh	Huawei Mate 20 Pro 4200 mAh	Apple iPhone Xs Max 3174 mAh	Average Samsung Exynos 9825	Average of class Smartphone
Power Consumption		-17%	-9%	22%	-3%	13%	-1%	9%
Idle Minimum *	0.9	0.9 -0%	0.9 -0%	0.7 22%	0.95 -6%	1 -11%	0.8 ?(0.7 - 0.9, n=2) 11%	0.897 ?(0.42 - 2.37, n=162, last 2 years) -0%
Idle Average *	1.2	1.9 -58%	1.8 -50%	1 17%	2.17 -81%	1.4 -17%	1.505 ?(1.2 - 1.81, n=2) -25%	1.452 ?(0.69 - 4.26, n=162, last 2 years) -21%
Idle Maximum *	2	3.7 -85%	2.9 -45%	1.3 35%	2.25 -13%	1.7 15%	1.96 ?(1.92 - 2, n=2) 2%	1.629 ?(0.79 - 4.45, n=162, last 2 years) 19%
Load Average *	7.7	5.3 31%	5.5 29%	5.2 32%	4.47 42%	4.6 40%	7.64 ?(7.57 - 7.7, n=2) 1%	5.55 ?(2.3 - 16.5, n=162, last 2 years) 28%
Load Maximum *	10.5	7.6 28%	8.2 22%	10 5%	6.15 41%	6.7 36%	9.92 ?(9.34 - 10.5, n=2) 6%	8.31 ?(3.53 - 20.8, n=162, last 2 years) 21%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Runtime

Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)		23h 12min
WiFi Websurfing		9h 43min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p		13h 23min
Load (maximum brightness)		4h 06min

	Samsung Galaxy Note10 3500 mAh	Samsung Galaxy Note 9 4000 mAh	OnePlus 7 Pro 4000 mAh	Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro 4000 mAh	Huawei Mate 20 Pro 4200 mAh	Apple iPhone Xs Max 3174 mAh
Battery Runtime		28%	13%	21%	20%	3%
Reader / Idle	1392	1687 21%	1745 25%	1768 27%	1747 26%	1305 -6%
H.264	803	896 12%	802 0%	987 23%	854 6%	801 0%
WiFi v1.3	583	794 36%	768 32%	762 31%	767 32%	742 27%
Load	246	354 44%	236 -4%	249 1%	282 15%	223 -9%

Pros

+ 紧凑小巧

+ 优质的设计和做工

+ S-Pen

+ 屏幕亮

+ 体面的相机

+ 精确的GPS模块

+ 令人印象深刻的扬声器

+ 快速指纹传感器

+ 性能强大

+ 时尚现代的UI

Cons

- 表面温度高

- 相对较慢的Wi-Fi

- SoC降频

- 电池续航时间不足

- 1080p屏幕

- 没有3.5毫米耳机插孔

- 包装盒中没有3.5毫米适配器

- 没有microSD读卡器

- 缺乏aptX HD支持

Samsung Galaxy Note 10 smartphone review. Test device courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de.

在某些方面，Galaxy Note 10比Note 9落后一步。Note10的电池比以前的要少，并且屏幕更小且分辨率更低。简而言之，三星似乎将Galaxy Note 10+视为Note 9的实际后代，而Note 10是Note系列的便宜入门级机型。

Note 10的摄像头比Galaxy Note 9更好，我们喜欢超广角。但是，我们在这里对Note 10的期望更高，主要是因为它的价格。自三星在相机技术上取得重大飞跃以来，已经过去了好几代，竞争也随之而来。 Note 10拥有一组不错且用途广泛的相机，但它们并没有像以前的Note和Galaxy S系列设备那样遥遥领先。

此外，Note 9仍保持许多不变的地方，新的快速充电技术，S笔手势和更快的连接性是从Note 9升级到Note 10的唯一硬件原因。Note 9所有者可能仍想切换到Note 10的设计，但我们更推荐往Note 10+升级，以节省金钱，除非您更喜欢小屏的智能手机；在所有其他方面，Note 10+都超过Note 10。

将Galaxy Note 10视为Note系列的入门级产品，与Note 10+相比，它提供了更精简的体验。相比Note 9也没有太大变化，甚至有所退步。

更糟糕的是，三星删除了3.5毫米耳机孔和microSD卡读卡器。三星为Note 10+保留了microSD卡扩展，尽管它也没有耳机插孔。我们怀疑我们的评测机的Wi-Fi性能相对较差，后续三星将通过软件更新修复的异常。令人失望的是，三星在Note 10系列上无法做到这一点。

Galaxy Note 10是一款出色的智能手机，它比其他许多现代旗舰产品提供更全面的体验。三星为S-Pen带来的新功能可能会说服某些人购买Note 10，但由于成本控制，它缺少Note 9所能提供的物有所值。最终，Note 10会很难卖，特别是当三星先前将Note系列推销为其功能最丰富的智能手机时。

请注意，Galaxy Note 10是我们使用新的v7评分系统评分的首批智能手机之一。在未来几周内，我们将使用这种新方法重新评估以前的旗舰产品。

Samsung Galaxy Note10 - 2022-09-03 09/03/2022 v7
Florian Schmitt

Chassis

90%

Keyboard

68 / 75 → 91%

Pointing Device

97%

Connectivity

52 / 70 → 74%

Weight

91%

Battery

89%

Display

91%

Games Performance

43 / 64 → 67%

Application Performance

77 / 86 → 90%

Temperature

85%

Noise

100%

Audio

78 / 90 → 86%

Camera

77%

Average

80%

86%

Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Editor of the original article: Alex Alderson - Senior Tech Writer - 9903 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2018

contact me via: @aldersonaj

Translator: Ninh Ngoc Duy - Editorial Assistant - 388017 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2008

contact me via: Facebook

Please share our article, every link counts!

> Notebookcheck中文版（NBC中国） > 评测 > 三星Galaxy Note10智能手机评测：还是最强商务手机吗？

Florian Schmitt, 2019-11- 4 (Update: 2019-11- 4)

三星Galaxy Note10智能手机评测：还是最强商务手机吗？

Size Comparison

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

Display Response Times

Samsung Galaxy Note10 audio analysis

Samsung Galaxy Note 9 audio analysis

Pros

Cons

More articles related to this device

Pricecompare