Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Magyar小米Note 10 Pro智能手机评测：多了那么一点
Comparison Devices
Bewertung | Rating Version | Datum | Modell | Gewicht | Laufwerk | Groesse | Aufloesung | Preis ab |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 83.8 % | 7 | 03/2020 | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro SD 730G, Adreno 618 | 208 g | 256 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.47" | 2340x1080 | |
| 83.3 % | 7 | 11/2019 | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 SD 730G, Adreno 618 | 208 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.47" | 2340x1080 | |
| 85.8 % | 7 | 10/2019 | OnePlus 7T SD 855+, Adreno 640 | 190 g | 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.55" | 2400x1080 | |
| 84.2 % | 7 | 10/2019 | Samsung Galaxy A90 5G SD 855, Adreno 640 | 206 g | 128 GB UFS 3.0 Flash | 6.70" | 2400x1080 | |
| 86 % | 7 | 05/2019 | Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL SD 855, Adreno 640 | 190 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.40" | 2340x1080 |
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
| OnePlus 7T | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | |
| Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL | |
| OnePlus 7T | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 | |
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 89 %
Center on Battery: 579 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 4.61 | 0.5-29.43 Ø5
ΔE Greyscale 4.2 | 0.57-98 Ø5.3
100% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.244
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.47 | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.47 | OnePlus 7T AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.55 | Samsung Galaxy A90 5G Super AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.70 | Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL IPS, 2340x1080, 6.40 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response Times | 9% | 47% | 12% | 129% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 8 ? | 10 ? -25% | 6 ? 25% | 10 ? -25% | 44 ? -450% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 24 ? | 8 ? 67% | 6 ? 75% | 6 ? 75% | 25.6 ? -7% |
| PWM Frequency | 255 | 215.5 -15% | 357 40% | 223 -13% | 2404 ? 843% |
| Screen | 5% | 20% | -13% | 1% | |
| Brightness middle | 579 | 625 8% | 693 20% | 581 0% | 569 -2% |
| Brightness | 576 | 607 5% | 703 22% | 581 1% | 537 -7% |
| Brightness Distribution | 89 | 89 0% | 96 8% | 94 6% | 79 -11% |
| Black Level * | 0.31 | ||||
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 4.61 | 4.38 5% | 3.42 26% | 5.44 -18% | 3.5 24% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 7.72 | 6.83 12% | 6.12 21% | 13.05 -69% | 6 22% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 4.2 | 4.1 2% | 3.3 21% | 4 5% | 5.1 -21% |
| Gamma | 2.244 98% | 2.251 98% | 2.265 97% | 2.118 104% | 2.36 93% |
| CCT | 7201 90% | 7251 90% | 6799 96% | 5882 111% | 6827 95% |
| Contrast | 1835 | ||||
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | 7% /
7% | 34% /
29% | -1% /
-4% | 65% /
43% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 24 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 19 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 5 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 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 48 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse 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 |  |
| ↘ 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). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 255 Hz |  | |
The display backlight flickers at 255 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) . The frequency of 255 Hz is relatively high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. However, there are reports that some users are still sensitive to PWM at 500 Hz and above, so be aware. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17900 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 3846000) Hz was measured. | |||
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 | OnePlus 7T | Samsung Galaxy A90 5G | Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL | Average 256 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | 4% | 40% | 114% | 35% | -9% | 226% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB | 499.2 | 480.5 -4% | 1406 182% | 1418 184% | 831 66% | 484 ? -3% | 1508 ? 202% |
| Sequential Write 256KB | 205.1 | 243.6 19% | 218.4 6% | 522 155% | 195.6 -5% | 203 ? -1% | 1118 ? 445% |
| Random Read 4KB | 119.2 | 106.2 -11% | 170.1 43% | 190.5 60% | 153.3 29% | 131.7 ? 10% | 247 ? 107% |
| Random Write 4KB | 108.5 | 118.9 10% | 29.9 -72% | 168.5 55% | 160.2 48% | 65.3 ? -40% | 272 ? 151% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 75.1 ? | 87 ? | 74.5 ? | ||||
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 59.4 ? | 62.5 ? | 53.5 ? |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 39.8 °C / 104 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 39.6 °C / 103 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29 °C / 84 F, compared to the device average of 32.7 °C / 91 F.
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 65.7% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 65.7% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 65.7% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (121.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 89% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 2% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 97% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 69.6% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 69.6% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 69.6% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (119.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 87% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 3% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 38%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 96% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 1% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro 5260 mAh | Xiaomi Mi Note 10 5260 mAh | OnePlus 7T 3800 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A90 5G 4500 mAh | Asus ZenFone 6 ZS630KL 5000 mAh | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | ||||||
| WiFi Websurfing | 1112 | 1127 1% | 896 -19% | 946 -15% | 801 -28% | 914 ? -18% |
Pros
Cons
总结
如果小米Xiaomi Mi Note 10提供的内存太少，又如果您喜欢大量的存储空间，那么选择很明确：Mi Note 10 Pro提供了这个价格内非常豪华的内存配置以及256 GB UFS 2.0闪存。但是，由于价格来到了600欧元，它不再像Mi Note 10那样便宜。
这主要是因为您可以以600欧元左右的价格获得功能更强大的设备，并且还提供更快的WLAN。
Mi Note 10 Pro的优点是支持HDR的大屏幕，出色的摄像头（与Mi Note 10相比，在细节上稍有改进）以及与Note 10相当的续航时间。
小米Note 10 Pro是配备完善摄像头的全能的智能手机，仅就性能而言，它还不够强。
如果价格有所下降，这台小米智能手机应该会变得更加有趣。它并不是600欧元以下的产品，主要是因为它的性能太低，但它的价格也还可以。总的来说，这款手机像Note 10一样，绝对值得推荐。
Xiaomi Mi Note 10 Pro
-
09/03/2022 v7
Florian Schmitt
Pricecompare
