Notebookcheck

三星Galaxy Note10智能手机评测:还是最强商务手机吗?

Florian Schmitt, 👁 Florian Schmitt (translated by Zewei Shen), 11/04/2019
Android ARM Galaxy Note Smartphone Touchscreen

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。

Samsung Galaxy Note10 (Galaxy Note Series)
Processor
Samsung Exynos 9825
Graphics adapter
ARM Mali-G76 MP12
Memory
8192 MB 
Display
6.3 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
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10

Size Comparison

162.6 mm 75.9 mm 8.8 mm 206 g162 mm 76.4 mm 8.8 mm 201 g156.7 mm 74.3 mm 8.8 mm 191 g156.9 mm 72.4 mm 8.6 mm 189 g157.5 mm 77.4 mm 7.7 mm 208 g151 mm 71.8 mm 7.9 mm 168 g
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Apple iPhone Xs Max
A12 Bionic GPU, A12 Bionic, 64 GB eMMC Flash
624 MBit/s ∼100% +60%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
615 (min: 532, max: 642) MBit/s ∼99% +58%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
491 (min: 100, max: 534) MBit/s ∼79% +26%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
485 MBit/s ∼78% +24%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Adreno 640, 855, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
467 (min: 375, max: 519) MBit/s ∼75% +20%
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Mali-G76 MP12, 9825, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
390 (min: 294, max: 447) MBit/s ∼63%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Adreno 640, 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
383 (min: 242, max: 434) MBit/s ∼61% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=449)
228 MBit/s ∼37% -42%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
696 (min: 647, max: 714) MBit/s ∼100% +58%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
Mali-G76 MP10, Kirin 980, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
663 (min: 289, max: 805) MBit/s ∼95% +51%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
A12 Bionic GPU, A12 Bionic, 64 GB eMMC Flash
602 MBit/s ∼86% +37%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
485 MBit/s ∼70% +10%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Adreno 640, 855, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
471 (min: 438, max: 506) MBit/s ∼68% +7%
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Mali-G76 MP12, 9825, 256 GB UFS 3.0 Flash
440 (min: 245, max: 489) MBit/s ∼63%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Adreno 640, 855, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
389 (min: 366, max: 444) MBit/s ∼56% -12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=449)
217 MBit/s ∼31% -51%
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 - Overview
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 - Overview
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 - Loop
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 - Loop
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 - Bridge
GPS test: Garmin Edge 520 - Bridge
GPS test: Samsung Galaxy Note 10 - Overview
GPS test: Samsung Galaxy Note 10 - Overview
GPS test: Samsung Galaxy Note 10 - Loop
GPS test: Samsung Galaxy Note 10 - Loop
GPS test: Samsung Galaxy Note 10 - Bridge
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 1Scene 2Scene 3
Photographed using the telephoto lens
Photographed using the telephoto lens
Photographed using the standard rear-facing camera
Photographed using the standard rear-facing camera
Photographed using the ultra-wide-angle lens
Photographed using the ultra-wide-angle lens
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
Samsung Galaxy Note 10
ColorChecker Photo
21.5 ∆E
11.2 ∆E
15.2 ∆E
21.7 ∆E
13.3 ∆E
5.8 ∆E
14 ∆E
13.8 ∆E
13.3 ∆E
13.2 ∆E
10.4 ∆E
10.5 ∆E
9.9 ∆E
15.2 ∆E
13.8 ∆E
5.4 ∆E
10.6 ∆E
12.4 ∆E
4.7 ∆E
4.6 ∆E
10.1 ∆E
12.1 ∆E
10.4 ∆E
1.7 ∆E
ColorChecker Samsung Galaxy Note10: 11.45 ∆E min: 1.73 - max: 21.65 ∆E
A photo of our test chart
A photo of our test chart
A photo of our test chart shot at 1 lux
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
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 794 cd/m² 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 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6
ΔE Greyscale 3.2 | 0.64-98 Ø6.2
97.1% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.073
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Dynamic AMOLED, 2280x1080, 6.3
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.4
OnePlus 7 Pro
AMOLED, 3120x1440, 6.67
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.39
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
OLED, 3120x1440, 6.3
Apple iPhone Xs Max
OLED, 2688x1242, 6.5
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 DeltaE2000 *
2.66
4.62
-74%
1.39
48%
1.51
43%
1.3
51%
1.7
36%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
5.65
10.91
-93%
2.7
52%
4.27
24%
3.5
38%
2.8
50%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
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)

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 (Likely 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: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9266 (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
8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 5 ms rise
↘ 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 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 6 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (24.9 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 3 ms rise
↘ 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 0.9 (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 (39.6 ms).
Geekbench 4.4
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
10515 Points ∼96%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
9059 Points ∼83% -14%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
7470 Points ∼68% -29%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
8938 Points ∼82% -15%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (10515 - 11300, n=2)
10908 Points ∼100% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (663 - 21070, n=325)
4691 Points ∼43% -55%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
10484 Points ∼93%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
8874 Points ∼79% -15%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
10812 Points ∼96% +3%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
10976 Points ∼98% +5%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
10024 Points ∼89% -4%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
11244 Points ∼100% +7%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (10367 - 10484, n=2)
10426 Points ∼93% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (883 - 11598, n=384)
4726 Points ∼42% -55%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
4551 Points ∼95%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
1698 Points ∼36% -63%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
3472 Points ∼73% -24%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
3429 Points ∼72% -25%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
3378 Points ∼71% -26%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
4774 Points ∼100% +5%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (4549 - 4551, n=2)
4550 Points ∼95% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (390 - 4824, n=384)
1426 Points ∼30% -69%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
8801 Points ∼88%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
5184 Points ∼52% -41%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
9974 Points ∼100% +13%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
9296 Points ∼93% +6%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
9225 Points ∼92% +5%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (8801 - 9027, n=2)
8914 Points ∼89% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 11440, n=388)
5333 Points ∼53% -39%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
11011 Points ∼88%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
5960 Points ∼48% -46%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
11766 Points ∼94% +7%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
11167 Points ∼89% +1%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
12535 Points ∼100% +14%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (11011 - 11813, n=2)
11412 Points ∼91% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 14946, n=556)
5785 Points ∼46% -47%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
2758 Points ∼83%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
3317 Points ∼100% +20%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
2657 Points ∼80% -4%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (2571 - 2758, n=2)
2665 Points ∼80% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1740 - 15735, n=68)
2676 Points ∼81% -3%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
6342 Points ∼100%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
5794 Points ∼91% -9%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
5702 Points ∼90% -10%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (6186 - 6342, n=2)
6264 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (203 - 14536, n=68)
2721 Points ∼43% -57%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (Vulkan) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
4921 Points ∼99%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
4969 Points ∼100% +1%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
4548 Points ∼92% -8%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (4713 - 4921, n=2)
4817 Points ∼97% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (253 - 14786, n=68)
2478 Points ∼50% -50%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
3649 Points ∼82%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
2613 Points ∼59% -28%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
4429 Points ∼100% +21%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
3280 Points ∼74% -10%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
4364 Points ∼99% +20%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
2723 Points ∼61% -25%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (3389 - 3649, n=2)
3519 Points ∼79% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 4683, n=396)
1981 Points ∼45% -46%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
6087 Points ∼86%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
3797 Points ∼53% -38%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
7115 Points ∼100% +17%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
6739 Points ∼95% +11%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
4250 Points ∼60% -30%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
4828 Points ∼68% -21%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (6036 - 6087, n=2)
6062 Points ∼85% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 8374, n=396)
1787 Points ∼25% -71%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
5300 Points ∼85%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
3450 Points ∼55% -35%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
6270 Points ∼100% +18%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
5440 Points ∼87% +3%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
4275 Points ∼68% -19%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
4121 Points ∼66% -22%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (5143 - 5300, n=2)
5222 Points ∼83% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 6916, n=397)
1658 Points ∼26% -69%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
3746 Points ∼85%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
2649 Points ∼60% -29%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
4352 Points ∼99% +16%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
3288 Points ∼75% -12%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
4407 Points ∼100% +18%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
2961 Points ∼67% -21%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (3498 - 3746, n=2)
3622 Points ∼82% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 4703, n=424)
1893 Points ∼43% -49%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
5605 Points ∼54%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
4904 Points ∼47% -13%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
10420 Points ∼100% +86%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
6730 Points ∼65% +20%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
5854 Points ∼56% +4%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
10374 Points ∼100% +85%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (5083 - 5605, n=2)
5344 Points ∼51% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=424)
2386 Points ∼23% -57%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
5048 Points ∼63%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
4124 Points ∼52% -18%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
7955 Points ∼100% +58%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
5460 Points ∼69% +8%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
5456 Points ∼69% +8%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
6667 Points ∼84% +32%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (4618 - 5048, n=2)
4833 Points ∼61% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10427, n=424)
2004 Points ∼25% -60%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
3559 Points ∼85%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
2569 Points ∼61% -28%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
4063 Points ∼97% +14%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
3724 Points ∼89% +5%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
4183 Points ∼100% +18%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
3027 Points ∼72% -15%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (3353 - 3559, n=2)
3456 Points ∼83% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (486 - 4519, n=476)
1888 Points ∼45% -47%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
5659 Points ∼89%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
3673 Points ∼58% -35%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
6248 Points ∼99% +10%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
6325 Points ∼100% +12%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
4206 Points ∼66% -26%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
3726 Points ∼59% -34%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (5659 - 5712, n=2)
5686 Points ∼90% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 7150, n=476)
1478 Points ∼23% -74%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
5003 Points ∼90%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
3353 Points ∼60% -33%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
5581 Points ∼100% +12%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
5475 Points ∼98% +9%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
4201 Points ∼75% -16%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
3544 Points ∼64% -29%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (4940 - 5003, n=2)
4972 Points ∼89% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 6319, n=477)
1423 Points ∼25% -72%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
3670 Points ∼88%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
2515 Points ∼61% -31%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
4091 Points ∼99% +11%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
3726 Points ∼90% +2%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
4150 Points ∼100% +13%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
2713 Points ∼65% -26%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (3273 - 3670, n=2)
3472 Points ∼84% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 4540, n=516)
1754 Points ∼42% -52%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
5732 Points ∼58%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
4826 Points ∼49% -16%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
9845 Points ∼100% +72%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
6325 Points ∼64% +10%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
5305 Points ∼54% -7%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
7055 Points ∼72% +23%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (5043 - 5732, n=2)
5388 Points ∼55% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 11302, n=515)
1936 Points ∼20% -66%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
5096 Points ∼68%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
4008 Points ∼53% -21%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
7501 Points ∼100% +47%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
5478 Points ∼73% +7%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
4996 Points ∼67% -2%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
5205 Points ∼69% +2%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (4502 - 5096, n=2)
4799 Points ∼64% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 8165, n=518)
1674 Points ∼22% -67%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
31908 Points ∼87%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
18756 Points ∼51% -41%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
26936 Points ∼73% -16%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
27278 Points ∼74% -15%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
36755 Points ∼100% +15%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
27717 Points ∼75% -13%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (31908 - 33268, n=2)
32588 Points ∼89% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 45072, n=676)
14217 Points ∼39% -55%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
65614 Points ∼41%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
36190 Points ∼23% -45%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
106829 Points ∼67% +63%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
103955 Points ∼65% +58%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
67730 Points ∼42% +3%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
159735 Points ∼100% +143%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (65614 - 66142, n=2)
65878 Points ∼41% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209204, n=674)
22183 Points ∼14% -66%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
53140 Points ∼68%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
29994 Points ∼39% -44%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
64389 Points ∼83% +21%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
63969 Points ∼82% +20%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
57047 Points ∼74% +7%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
77599 Points ∼100% +46%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (53140 - 54233, n=2)
53687 Points ∼69% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 97276, n=674)
17924 Points ∼23% -66%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
50 fps ∼22%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
146 fps ∼65% +192%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
166 fps ∼73% +232%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
167 fps ∼74% +234%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
120 fps ∼53% +140%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
226 fps ∼100% +352%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (50 - 95, n=2)
72.5 fps ∼32% +45%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=694)
38.1 fps ∼17% -24%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
55 fps ∼80%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
60 fps ∼87% +9%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
60 fps ∼87% +9%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
69 fps ∼100% +25%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
61 fps ∼88% +11%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
60 fps ∼87% +9%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (55 - 58, n=2)
56.5 fps ∼82% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 120, n=703)
28.1 fps ∼41% -49%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
69 fps ∼64%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
76 fps ∼71% +10%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
101 fps ∼94% +46%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
90 fps ∼84% +30%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
73 fps ∼68% +6%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
107 fps ∼100% +55%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (69 - 89, n=2)
79 fps ∼74% +14%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 175, n=600)
21.9 fps ∼20% -68%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
57 fps ∼97%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
47 fps ∼80% -18%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
55 fps ∼93% -4%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
59 fps ∼100% +4%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
42 fps ∼71% -26%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
59 fps ∼100% +4%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (56 - 57, n=2)
56.5 fps ∼96% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=609)
19.4 fps ∼33% -66%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
47 fps ∼66%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
45 fps ∼63% -4%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
71 fps ∼100% +51%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
62 fps ∼87% +32%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
29 fps ∼41% -38%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
69.3 fps ∼98% +47%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (47 - 65, n=2)
56 fps ∼79% +19%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=466)
17.9 fps ∼25% -62%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
45 fps ∼76%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
25 fps ∼42% -44%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
36 fps ∼61% -20%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
51 fps ∼87% +13%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
26 fps ∼44% -42%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
58.9 fps ∼100% +31%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (36 - 45, n=2)
40.5 fps ∼69% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=468)
16.7 fps ∼28% -63%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
29 fps ∼90%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
15 fps ∼47% -48%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
17 fps ∼53% -41%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
19 fps ∼59% -34%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
32.1 fps ∼100% +11%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (17 - 29, n=2)
23 fps ∼72% -21%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=189)
9.99 fps ∼31% -66%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
18 fps ∼75%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
16 fps ∼67% -11%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
24 fps ∼100% +33%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
13 fps ∼54% -28%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
16.3 fps ∼68% -9%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (18 - 18, n=2)
18 fps ∼75% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 33, n=188)
6.98 fps ∼29% -61%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
35 fps ∼74%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
23 fps ∼49% -34%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
36 fps ∼77% +3%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
18 fps ∼38% -49%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
47 fps ∼100% +34%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (27 - 35, n=2)
31 fps ∼66% -11%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=193)
14.7 fps ∼31% -58%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
38 fps ∼88%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
42 fps ∼98% +11%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
42 fps ∼98% +11%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
33 fps ∼77% -13%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
36.8 fps ∼86% -3%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (38 - 48, n=2)
43 fps ∼100% +13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 87, n=193)
16.4 fps ∼38% -57%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
21 fps ∼50%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
28 fps ∼67% +33%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
42 fps ∼100% +100%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
36 fps ∼86% +71%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
31 fps ∼74% +48%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
40 fps ∼95% +90%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (21 - 28, n=2)
24.5 fps ∼58% +17%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 73, n=391)
12.2 fps ∼29% -42%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
21 fps ∼51%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
15 fps ∼37% -29%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
21 fps ∼51% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
41 fps ∼100% +95%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
16 fps ∼39% -24%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
31 fps ∼76% +48%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (18 - 21, n=2)
19.5 fps ∼48% -7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=395)
10.9 fps ∼27% -48%
Basemark GPU
1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
33.73 fps ∼38%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
29.4 fps ∼33% -13%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
37.3 fps ∼42% +11%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
29.12 (min: 9.74, max: 74.17) fps ∼33% -14%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (33.4 - 33.7, n=2)
33.6 fps ∼38% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (8.24 - 4528, n=63)
88.2 fps ∼100% +161%
Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
37.32 fps ∼58%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
15.51 fps ∼24% -58%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
22.73 fps ∼35% -39%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
16.92 (min: 6.06, max: 28.78) fps ∼26% -55%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (27.5 - 37.3, n=2)
32.4 fps ∼50% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.57 - 2850, n=56)
64.8 fps ∼100% +74%
1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
39.73 fps ∼39%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
22.84 fps ∼23% -43%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
36.29 fps ∼36% -9%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
25.57 (min: 7.38, max: 46.96) fps ∼25% -36%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (39.1 - 39.7, n=2)
39.4 fps ∼39% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.88 - 4462, n=53)
101 fps ∼100% +154%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
347082 Points ∼93%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
236552 Points ∼63% -32%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
369294 Points ∼99% +6%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
372734 Points ∼100% +7%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
300617 Points ∼81% -13%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
302955 Points ∼81% -13%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (347082 - 347229, n=2)
347156 Points ∼93% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (17073 - 462516, n=296)
143587 Points ∼39% -59%
VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
4996 Score ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
2327 Score ∼46% -53%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
4969 Score ∼99% -1%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
5025 Score ∼100% +1%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (4985 - 4996, n=2)
4991 Score ∼99% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (119 - 5025, n=60)
2188 Score ∼44% -56%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
1638 Points ∼95%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
1132 Points ∼65% -31%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
1364 Points ∼79% -17%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
1076 Points ∼62% -34%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
1424 Points ∼82% -13%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
1731 Points ∼100% +6%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (1374 - 1638, n=2)
1506 Points ∼87% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 9387, n=635)
773 Points ∼45% -53%
Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
9465 Points ∼60%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
6506 Points ∼42% -31%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
9421 Points ∼60% 0%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
8700 Points ∼56% -8%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
6273 Points ∼40% -34%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
15659 Points ∼100% +65%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (9092 - 9465, n=2)
9279 Points ∼59% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=635)
2070 Points ∼13% -78%
Memory (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
4598 Points ∼73%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
2068 Points ∼33% -55%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
5243 Points ∼83% +14%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
3922 Points ∼62% -15%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
6283 Points ∼100% +37%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
1815 Points ∼29% -61%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (4598 - 4646, n=2)
4622 Points ∼74% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 7500, n=635)
1530 Points ∼24% -67%
System (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
8014 Points ∼69%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
6137 Points ∼53% -23%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
9143 Points ∼78% +14%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
7423 Points ∼64% -7%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
8604 Points ∼74% +7%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
11675 Points ∼100% +46%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (7965 - 8014, n=2)
7990 Points ∼68% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=635)
2994 Points ∼26% -63%
Overall (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
4889 Points ∼98%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
3110 Points ∼62% -36%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
4982 Points ∼100% +2%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 8192
4045 Points ∼81% -17%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
4687 Points ∼94% -4%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
4895 Points ∼98% 0%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
  (4637 - 4889, n=2)
4763 Points ∼96% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6097, n=635)
1501 Points ∼30% -69%
Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy Note10
Samsung Exynos 9825, Mali-G76 MP12, 8192
1976 Points ∼82%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9
Samsung Exynos 9810, Mali-G72 MP18, 6144
1481 Points ∼62% -25%
OnePlus 7 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855, Adreno 640, 12288
1425 Points ∼59% -28%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 980, Mali-G76 MP10, 6144
1571 Points ∼65% -20%
Apple iPhone Xs Max
Apple A12 Bionic, A12 Bionic GPU, 4096
2407 Points ∼100% +22%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
 
1976 Points ∼82% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (35 - 2754, n=104)
740 Points ∼31% -63%
Jetstream 2 - Total Score
OnePlus 7 Pro (Chrome 74)
62.5 Points ∼100% +30%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Chrome 75)
58.746 Points ∼94% +22%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 74)
48.44 Points ∼78% +1%
Samsung Galaxy Note10 (Chrome 76)
47.968 Points ∼77%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (42.7 - 48, n=2)
45.3 Points ∼72% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (9.13 - 133, n=106)
35.7 Points ∼57% -26%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
OnePlus 7 Pro (Chome 74)
61.5 runs/min ∼100% +3%
Samsung Galaxy Note10 (Chome 76)
59.7 runs/min ∼97%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825
59.7 runs/min ∼97% 0%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 71)
58.6 runs/min ∼95% -2%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Chrome 75)
42.5 runs/min ∼69% -29%
Average of class Smartphone (6.42 - 157, n=94)
40 runs/min ∼65% -33%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Apple iPhone Xs Max (Safari 12)
155 Points ∼100% +60%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69)
124 Points ∼80% +28%
OnePlus 7 Pro (Chrome 74)
111 Points ∼72% +14%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (97 - 118, n=2)
108 Points ∼70% +11%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Chrome 75)
107 Points ∼69% +10%
Samsung Galaxy Note10 (Chrome 76)
97 Points ∼63%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 (Chrome 68)
72 Points ∼46% -26%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 184, n=165)
67 Points ∼43% -31%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Apple iPhone Xs Max (Safari 12)
43114 Points ∼100% +128%
OnePlus 7 Pro (Chrome 74)
24730 Points ∼57% +31%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69)
23285 Points ∼54% +23%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Chrome 75)
20598 Points ∼48% +9%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (18908 - 19135, n=2)
19022 Points ∼44% +1%
Samsung Galaxy Note10 (Chrome 76)
18908 Points ∼44%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 (Chrome 68)
14663 Points ∼34% -22%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=693)
6801 Points ∼16% -64%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (571 - 59466, n=717)
10531 ms * ∼100% -325%
Samsung Galaxy Note 9 (Chrome 68)
2710 ms * ∼26% -9%
Average Samsung Exynos 9825 (2478 - 2528, n=2)
2503 ms * ∼24% -1%
Samsung Galaxy Note10 (Chrome 76)
2478.2 ms * ∼24%
Xiaomi Mi 9T Pro (Chrome 75)
2333.5 ms * ∼22% +6%
OnePlus 7 Pro (Chrome 74)
1965 ms * ∼19% +21%
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Chrome 69)
1951.9 ms * ∼19% +21%
Apple iPhone Xs Max (Safari 12)
603.1 ms * ∼6% +76%

* ... smaller is better

Samsung Galaxy Note10Samsung Galaxy Note 9OnePlus 7 ProXiaomi Mi 9T ProHuawei Mate 20 ProApple iPhone Xs MaxAverage 256 GB UFS 3.0 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-58%
-33%
-41%
-37%
-22%
-82%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
66.7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
72.38 (Huawei NanoSD 128 GB)
59.5
49.2 (1.7 - 87.1, n=428)
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
77 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
83.18 (Huawei NanoSD 128 GB)
71
67.5 (8.1 - 96.5, n=428)
Random Write 4KB
191.9
21
-89%
24.8
-87%
148.51
-23%
157.84
-18%
80.1 (24.8 - 192, n=6)
-58%
22.3 (0.14 - 250, n=752)
-88%
Random Read 4KB
194.2
134
-31%
174.1
-10%
142.5
-27%
157.42
-19%
180 (169 - 196, n=6)
-7%
47.6 (1.59 - 196, n=752)
-75%
Sequential Write 256KB
590.3
196
-67%
387
-34%
196.87
-67%
196.39
-67%
461 (387 - 590, n=6)
-22%
97.6 (2.99 - 590, n=752)
-83%
Sequential Read 256KB
1478.3
805
-46%
1468
-1%
808.76
-45%
853.28
-42%
1482 (1463 - 1504, n=6)
0%
275 (12.1 - 1504, n=752)
-81%
0102030405060Tooltip
; Arena of Valor; min; 1.30.2.4: Ø59.9 (59-60)
; Arena of Valor; high HD; 1.30.2.4: Ø60 (59-60)
; Asphalt 9: Legends; High Quality; 1.7.3a: Ø30 (29-31)
; Asphalt 9: Legends; Standard / low; 1.7.3a: Ø30 (28-31)
; Shadow Fight 3; high; 1.19.0: Ø59.1 (51-60)
; Shadow Fight 3; minimal; 1.19.0: Ø59.7 (56-60)
Max. Load
 44.9 °C43.4 °C39.7 °C 
 45.7 °C43.5 °C39.7 °C 
 45.9 °C43.4 °C39.6 °C 
Maximum: 45.9 °C
Average: 42.9 °C
36.9 °C40.8 °C40.2 °C
37.5 °C41.7 °C41.9 °C
37.4 °C41.9 °C43.1 °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 33.1 °C / 92 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 35.5 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 43.1 °C / 110 F, compared to the average of 34.1 °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 33.1 °C / 92 F.
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2039.943.62543.849.53136.538.84036.142.75045.144.66335.736.48026.732.310028.529.312526.532.816024.841.820024.646.82502452.131522.555.64002058.350020.466.563019.866.780019.365.2100023.869.1125017.871.316001871.5200017.370250016.668.6315015.760.9400015.765.7500015.770.9630015.672.1800015.769.41000015.7641250015.757.71600015.755.7SPL63.268.730.780.9N17.322.21.549.5median 18median 65.2Delta4.38.632.341.525.63125.733.227.429.23738.323.323.621.424.121.725.119.933.217.439.9174716.450.114.551.314.256.714.156.912.655.512.558.51259.911.860.911.662.411.463.911.358.811.456.111.159.711.25811.356.711.259.411.358.411.355.711.350.954.565.56767.167.365.824.171.69.618.919.520.221.617.80.629median 11.8median 56.71.74.5hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseSamsung Galaxy Note10Samsung Galaxy Note 9
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 (10.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.9% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.7% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (8.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (19% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 10% of all tested devices in this class were better, 6% similar, 84% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 36% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 57% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

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
(+) | overall sound is linear (13.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 0% of all tested devices in this class were better, 0% similar, 100% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 9% of all tested devices were better, 2% similar, 89% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0 / 0.25 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.9 / 1.2 / 2 Watt
Load midlight 7.7 / 10.5 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
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%
0.882 (0.2 - 3.4, n=782)
2%
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%
1.74 (0.6 - 6.2, n=781)
-45%
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%
2.03 (0.74 - 6.6, n=782)
-2%
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%
4.07 (0.8 - 10.8, n=776)
47%
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%
5.92 (1.2 - 14.2, n=776)
44%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
23h 12min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
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.
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 - 09/27/2019 v7
Florian Schmitt

Chassis
90%
Keyboard
68 / 75 → 91%
Pointing Device
97%
Connectivity
52 / 70 → 74%
Weight
91%
Battery
89%
Display
89%
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

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)