Notebookcheck

三星 Galaxy XCover 4 (SM-G390F) 智能手机简短评测

Florian Wimmer (translated by Kangfei Zheng), 06/28/2017
Touchscreen Smartphone Android ARM

坚实,时尚? 三星旨在提供一个能恶劣环境下使用,同时散发优雅气息的智能手机。事实上,该手机性能强劲,而不是太笨重。我们测验了其在日常生活中的适用性是否同样令人印象深刻。

Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 (Galaxy XCover Series)
Processor
Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad 1.4 GHz
Graphics adapter
ARM Mali-T720
Memory
2048 MB 
Display
5 inch 16:9, 1280x720 pixel 294 PPI, 电容式触控屏, IPS, glossy: yes
Storage
16 GB eMMC Flash, 16 GB 
, 10.1 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5-mm 耳机接口, Card Reader: micro-SD max. 256 GB, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: position sensor, accelerometer, proximity sensor
Networking
802.11a/b/g/n (a/b/g/n), Bluetooth 4.2, GSM (850/​900/​1800/​1900), UMTS (850/​900/​1900/​2100), LTE (B1/​B3/​B5/​B7/​B8/​B20/​B38/​B40); LTE Cat.4 (max. 150Mbps download / ​max. 50Mbps upload); SAR rate: 0.611W/​kg (head), 1.24W/​kg (body), LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 9.7 x 146.2 x 73.3
Battery
10.6 Wh, 2800 mAh Lithium-Ion, removeable, Talk time 3G (according to manufacturer): 17 h
Operating System
Android 7.0 Nougat
Camera
Primary Camera: 13 MPix f/1.9, contrast AF, LED flash
Secondary Camera: 5 MPix f/2.2
Additional features
Speakers: speaker on the right edge, Keyboard: 虚拟键盘, charger, USB cable, S Health, Knox (secure container), Samsung Notes, 24 Months Warranty, IP68 certified, MIL-STD-810G certified, fanless, ruggedized
Weight
172 g, Power Supply: 52 g
Price
249 Euro

 

Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4

Size Comparison

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Huawei P10 Lite
Mali-T830 MP2, Kirin 658, 32 GB eMMC Flash
229 MBit/s ∼100% +365%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Mali-T720, 7570 Quad, 16 GB eMMC Flash
49.2 MBit/s ∼21%
AGM A8
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 32 GB eMMC Flash
26.9 MBit/s ∼12% -45%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Huawei P10 Lite
Mali-T830 MP2, Kirin 658, 32 GB eMMC Flash
232 MBit/s ∼100% +512%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
Mali-T720, 7570 Quad, 16 GB eMMC Flash
37.9 MBit/s ∼16%
AGM A8
Adreno 306, 410 MSM8916, 32 GB eMMC Flash
18.4 MBit/s ∼8% -51%
GPS Garmin Edge 500: Overview
GPS Garmin Edge 500: Overview
GPS Garmin Edge 500: Crossing
GPS Garmin Edge 500: Crossing
GPS Garmin Edge 500: Bridge
GPS Garmin Edge 500: Bridge
GPS Samsung Galaxy Xcover 4: Overview
GPS Samsung Galaxy Xcover 4: Overview
GPS Samsung Galaxy Xcover 4: Crossing
GPS Samsung Galaxy Xcover 4: Crossing
GPS Samsung Galaxy Xcover 4: Bridge
GPS Samsung Galaxy Xcover 4: 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
click to load images
430
cd/m²
452
cd/m²
462
cd/m²
421
cd/m²
445
cd/m²
453
cd/m²
407
cd/m²
416
cd/m²
445
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 462 cd/m² Average: 436.8 cd/m² Minimum: 3.71 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 88 %
Center on Battery: 445 cd/m²
Contrast: 664:1 (Black: 0.67 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.5 | - Ø
ΔE Greyscale 7.2 | - Ø
Gamma: 2.53
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
IPS, 1280x720, 5
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
IPS, 800x480, 4.5
Huawei P10 Lite
IPS, 1920x1080, 5.2
Motorola Moto X Force
AMOLED, 2560x1440, 5.4
AGM A8
IPS, 1280x720, 5
Screen
16%
37%
24%
54%
Brightness
437
436
0%
509
16%
336
-23%
343
-22%
Brightness Distribution
88
91
3%
95
8%
91
3%
93
6%
Black Level *
0.67
0.53
21%
0.36
46%
0.21
69%
Contrast
664
853
28%
1408
112%
1695
155%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
6.5
5.71
12%
5.1
22%
3.99
39%
3.7
43%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
7.2
5.02
30%
6.1
15%
1.66
77%
1.9
74%
Gamma
2.53 95%
2.15 112%
2.28 105%
2.32 103%
2.5 96%
CCT
8274 79%
7441 87%
8143 80%
6584 99%
6412 101%

* ... 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 20400 Hz90 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 20400 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 90 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 20400 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 58 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 5885 (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
16 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 7 ms rise
↘ 9 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 8 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (26.8 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
36 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 17 ms rise
↘ 19 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 25 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (43 ms).
AnTuTu Benchmark v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
35379 Points ∼16%
Huawei P10 Lite
60438 Points ∼27% +71%
Motorola Moto X Force
89911 Points ∼39% +154%
AGM A8
26753 Points ∼12% -24%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
952 Points ∼31%
Huawei P10 Lite
1592 Points ∼53% +67%
Motorola Moto X Force
1351 Points ∼45% +42%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
85 Points ∼2%
Huawei P10 Lite
326 Points ∼6% +284%
Motorola Moto X Force
2067 Points ∼38% +2332%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
107 Points ∼3%
Huawei P10 Lite
396 Points ∼10% +270%
Motorola Moto X Force
1849 Points ∼48% +1628%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
955 Points ∼32%
Huawei P10 Lite
1537 Points ∼51% +61%
Motorola Moto X Force
1282 Points ∼43% +34%
AGM A8
739 Points ∼25% -23%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
157 Points ∼2%
Huawei P10 Lite
520 Points ∼7% +231%
Motorola Moto X Force
3226 Points ∼42% +1955%
AGM A8
43 Points ∼1% -73%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
193 Points ∼4%
Huawei P10 Lite
610 Points ∼12% +216%
Motorola Moto X Force
2413 Points ∼48% +1150%
AGM A8
54 Points ∼1% -72%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
11459 Points ∼17%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
9613 Points ∼14% -16%
Huawei P10 Lite
13510 Points ∼20% +18%
Motorola Moto X Force
11963 Points ∼17% +4%
AGM A8
9082 Points ∼13% -21%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
3985 Points ∼1%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
2591 Points ∼1% -35%
Huawei P10 Lite
10603 Points ∼2% +166%
Motorola Moto X Force
38394 Points ∼8% +863%
AGM A8
3808 Points ∼1% -4%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
4661 Points ∼2%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
3093 Points ∼2% -34%
Huawei P10 Lite
11135 Points ∼6% +139%
Motorola Moto X Force
25751 Points ∼13% +452%
AGM A8
4372 Points ∼2% -6%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
6.8 fps ∼1%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
5.4 fps ∼0% -21%
Huawei P10 Lite
17 fps ∼1% +150%
Motorola Moto X Force
58 fps ∼4% +753%
AGM A8
2.8 fps ∼0% -59%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
11 fps ∼2%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
15.1 fps ∼3% +37%
Huawei P10 Lite
18 fps ∼4% +64%
Motorola Moto X Force
42 fps ∼9% +282%
AGM A8
9.5 fps ∼2% -14%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
2.6 fps ∼0%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
0.8 fps ∼0% -69%
Huawei P10 Lite
7.2 fps ∼1% +177%
Motorola Moto X Force
27 fps ∼5% +938%
AGM A8
1.8 fps ∼0% -31%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
5.4 fps ∼1%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
2.3 fps ∼1% -57%
Huawei P10 Lite
7.7 fps ∼2% +43%
Motorola Moto X Force
17 fps ∼5% +215%
AGM A8
4 fps ∼1% -26%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
1.6 fps ∼0%
Huawei P10 Lite
4.2 fps ∼1% +163%
Motorola Moto X Force
20 fps ∼5% +1150%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
3.9 fps ∼2%
Huawei P10 Lite
4.8 fps ∼3% +23%
Motorola Moto X Force
12 fps ∼7% +208%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
3446 Points ∼50%
Huawei P10 Lite
4464 Points ∼65% +30%
AGM A8
3701 Points ∼54% +7%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
4508 Points ∼54%
Huawei P10 Lite
5794 Points ∼70% +29%
Motorola Moto X Force
5365 Points ∼65% +19%
AGM A8
2920 Points ∼35% -35%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
661 Points ∼43%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
744 Points ∼48% +13%
Huawei P10 Lite
654 Points ∼42% -1%
Motorola Moto X Force
939 Points ∼61% +42%
AGM A8
557 Points ∼36% -16%
Graphics (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
253 Points ∼3%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
129 Points ∼1% -49%
Huawei P10 Lite
829 Points ∼10% +228%
Motorola Moto X Force
3376 Points ∼39% +1234%
AGM A8
306 Points ∼4% +21%
Memory (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
1066 Points ∼24%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
366 Points ∼8% -66%
Huawei P10 Lite
1592 Points ∼36% +49%
Motorola Moto X Force
1085 Points ∼25% +2%
AGM A8
757 Points ∼17% -29%
System (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
1396 Points ∼21%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
1103 Points ∼17% -21%
Huawei P10 Lite
2642 Points ∼40% +89%
Motorola Moto X Force
2878 Points ∼44% +106%
AGM A8
1161 Points ∼18% -17%
Overall (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
706 Points ∼19%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
443 Points ∼12% -37%
Huawei P10 Lite
1229 Points ∼32% +74%
Motorola Moto X Force
1774 Points ∼47% +151%
AGM A8
622 Points ∼16% -12%
Geekbench 4.1
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
1855 Points ∼11%
Huawei P10 Lite
3460 Points ∼21% +87%
AGM A8
1383 Points ∼9% -25%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
629 Points ∼13%
Huawei P10 Lite
913 Points ∼19% +45%
AGM A8
515 Points ∼11% -18%

Legend

 
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, ARM Mali-T720, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3 Marvell Armada PXA1908, Vivante GC7000UL, 8 GB eMMC Flash
 
Huawei P10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 658, ARM Mali-T830 MP2, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
Motorola Moto X Force Qualcomm Snapdragon 810 MSM8994, Qualcomm Adreno 430, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
AGM A8 Qualcomm Snapdragon 410 MSM8916, Qualcomm Adreno 306, 32 GB eMMC Flash
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
11130 ms * ∼19%
Huawei P10 Lite
8590.8 ms * ∼14% +23%
Motorola Moto X Force
4080.1 ms * ∼7% +63%
AGM A8
12247.9 ms * ∼21% -10%
Octane V2 - Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
3133 Points ∼6%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
2059 Points ∼4% -34%
Huawei P10 Lite
4589 Points ∼9% +46%
Motorola Moto X Force
8699 Points ∼18% +178%
AGM A8
2733 Points ∼6% -13%
JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
20.988 Points ∼6%
Huawei P10 Lite
30.047 Points ∼9% +43%
Motorola Moto X Force
49.373 Points ∼15% +135%
AGM A8
16.897 Points ∼5% -19%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
61 Points ∼8%
Huawei P10 Lite
62 Points ∼8% +2%
Motorola Moto X Force
103 Points ∼14% +69%

* ... smaller is better

AndroBench 3-5
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
55.66 MB/s ∼64%
Huawei P10 Lite
32.7 MB/s ∼38% -41%
Motorola Moto X Force
46.96 MB/s ∼54% -16%
AGM A8
20.46 MB/s ∼23% -63%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
68.97 MB/s ∼71%
Huawei P10 Lite
53.4 MB/s ∼55% -23%
Motorola Moto X Force
79.04 MB/s ∼82% +15%
AGM A8
22.01 MB/s ∼23% -68%
Random Write 4KB (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
11.9 MB/s ∼8%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
4 MB/s ∼3% -66%
Huawei P10 Lite
19.36 MB/s ∼13% +63%
Motorola Moto X Force
19.78 MB/s ∼13% +66%
AGM A8
3.73 MB/s ∼2% -69%
Random Read 4KB (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
21.8 MB/s ∼13%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
15.8 MB/s ∼9% -28%
Huawei P10 Lite
72.47 MB/s ∼42% +232%
Motorola Moto X Force
22.55 MB/s ∼13% +3%
AGM A8
11.44 MB/s ∼7% -48%
Sequential Write 256KB (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
73.6 MB/s ∼36%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
25.6 MB/s ∼12% -65%
Huawei P10 Lite
129.18 MB/s ∼63% +76%
Motorola Moto X Force
47.99 MB/s ∼23% -35%
AGM A8
69.47 MB/s ∼34% -6%
Sequential Read 256KB (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
181.6 MB/s ∼23%
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
113.5 MB/s ∼14% -37%
Huawei P10 Lite
264.3 MB/s ∼33% +46%
Motorola Moto X Force
252.03 MB/s ∼32% +39%
AGM A8
140.67 MB/s ∼18% -23%
Asphalt 8: Airborne
 SettingsValue
 high23 fps
 very low30 fps
Dead Trigger 2
 SettingsValue
 high30 fps
Max. Load
 36.4 °C36.6 °C34.8 °C 
 38.2 °C36.6 °C35.7 °C 
 37.9 °C37 °C36.2 °C 
Maximum: 38.2 °C
Average: 36.6 °C
36.2 °C36.6 °C36.6 °C
35.8 °C37.4 °C37.3 °C
35.6 °C37.5 °C37.3 °C
Maximum: 37.5 °C
Average: 36.7 °C
Power Supply (max.)  30.6 °C | Room Temperature 21.5 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2031.634.12525.433.43125.332.34032.927.65033.628.16331.634.48028.430.11002736.512520.833.41602241.220021.347.625020.852.131521.255.240019.457.450019.560.363017.765.480017.968.6100017.870125017.370.6160017.472200016.771.3250017.269.7315018.271400017.972.4500017.666.3630017.761.4800017.857.91000017.9581250018.149.21600018.246.6SPL3080.4N1.347.4median 17.9Samsung Galaxy XCover 4median 60.3Delta1.310.731.641.725.440.125.336.632.927.533.629.731.633.228.429.42727.420.825.1222321.32720.839.221.247.819.454.319.562.517.772.217.975.317.876.717.374.917.472.916.774.917.275.818.276.617.97617.672.317.761.217.856.217.95718.163.718.252.73085.81.359.8median 17.9AGM A8median 62.51.316.9hearing rangehide median Pink Noise
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 15.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 7.4% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 28% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 61% worse
» The best had a delta of 14%, average was 26%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 56% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 37% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 22%, worst was 53%

AGM A8 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.78 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 30.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 10% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 9.1% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (33.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 84% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 9% worse
» The best had a delta of 14%, average was 26%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 92% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 5% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 22%, worst was 53%

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.006 / 0.1 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.56 / 1.57 / 1.68 Watt
Load midlight 4.6 / 5.92 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
2800 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
 mAh
Huawei P10 Lite
3000 mAh
Motorola Moto X Force
3760 mAh
AGM A8
4050 mAh
Power Consumption
24%
7%
-26%
-23%
Idle Minimum *
0.56
0.6
-7%
0.38
32%
0.96
-71%
0.86
-54%
Idle Average *
1.57
1.2
24%
1.87
-19%
1.35
14%
1.97
-25%
Idle Maximum *
1.68
1.3
23%
1.92
-14%
1.4
17%
2.04
-21%
Load Average *
4.6
2.6
43%
3.82
17%
6.11
-33%
4.86
-6%
Load Maximum *
5.92
3.6
39%
4.9
17%
9.43
-59%
6.43
-9%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
23h 08min
WiFi Surfing v1.3
11h 08min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
11h 21min
Load (maximum brightness)
3h 25min
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4
2800 mAh
Samsung Galaxy Xcover 3
 mAh
Huawei P10 Lite
3000 mAh
Motorola Moto X Force
3760 mAh
AGM A8
4050 mAh
Battery Runtime
-18%
7%
11%
-2%
Reader / Idle
1388
1002
-28%
1410
2%
1610
16%
H.264
681
678
0%
586
-14%
710
4%
WiFi v1.3
668
503
-25%
665
0%
426
-36%
654
-2%
Load
205
166
-19%
286
40%
330
61%

Pros

+ 坚实低调的机身
+ 各种硬件按钮
+ 防水防尘
+ 非常准确的GPS模块
+ 电池续航好
+ 明亮的屏幕
+ 可拆卸电池
+ 手套模式
+ UI有许多选项
+ 安卓7.0

Cons

- 低内存配置
- 语音质量差
- 前置摄像头质量一般
- 相对较高的黑色值
- 显示屏蓝色调
- 中庸的游戏性能
In review: Samsung Galaxy XCover 4. Review sample courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de
In review: Samsung Galaxy XCover 4. Review sample courtesy of notebooksbilliger.de

即使三星的Galaxy XCover 4并没有像想象里那么坚固,但却比许多其他非常脆弱的智能手机获得了更好的保护。坚固的塑料外壳看起来不笨重,它甚至可以更换电池。防水防尘能力与前代相比有所增强,扬声器现在在手机潮湿时仍然无可挑剔。在水中使用后,我们在后盖下方发现一滴水。 因此,该设备在这里需要单独地干燥处理

该设备的存储容量可以更大些,但其应用广泛的操作系统和相当有用的主要摄像机还是让人折服的。输入选项多样,屏幕适当,性能足够日常使用。电池续航也符合良好的整体印象。尽管如此,我们并不喜欢该手机的音质和游戏性能。

像它的前身一样,Galaxy XCover 4并不适合极端的情况下使用,但是足以应对日常生活的不确定性因素。坚硬外壳下,隐藏着一个坚实的,中低档智能手机。

需要能在极端情况下使用的高端手机用户,将不得不在其他专业设备中选择。三星提供了一个坚实的设备,适用于稍微恶劣的日常环境,如徒步旅行或偶尔访问一个多尘的施工现场。由于该设备相对较便宜,定位系统很优秀,因此非常适合于这些情况。

注:本文是基于完整评测减版本,阅读完整的英文评测

Samsung Galaxy XCover 4 - 06/12/2017 v6
Florian Wimmer

Chassis
90%
Keyboard
69 / 75 → 92%
Pointing Device
92%
Connectivity
37 / 60 → 62%
Weight
90%
Battery
93%
Display
82%
Games Performance
7 / 63 → 11%
Application Performance
40 / 70 → 58%
Temperature
89%
Noise
100%
Audio
49 / 91 → 54%
Camera
66%
Average
70%
81%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebookcheck中文版(NBC中国) > 评测 > 三星 Galaxy XCover 4 (SM-G390F) 智能手机简短评测
Florian Wimmer, 2017-06-28 (Update: 2017-08- 1)