Notebookcheck

红米Note 9智能手机评测:有着6400万四摄的红米9

小改进,大改观。 小改进,大改观。 在纸面上,Redmi Note 9是Redmi 9的略微改进版本。 但是,规格表中的这些小改进体现了日常操作中的明显差异。在下面了解小米智能手机在我们的测试中的表现。
Marcus Herbrich, 👁 Daniel Schmidt (translated by Zewei Shen), 🇺🇸 🇩🇪 ...
Android Smartphone Touchscreen
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Redmi Note Series)
Processor
Mediatek Helio G85 8 x 2 GHz, Cortex-A75 / A55
Graphics adapter
ARM Mali-G52 MP2
Memory
3072 MB 
Display
6.53 inch 19.5:9, 2340 x 1080 pixel 395 PPI, capacitive touchscreen, IPS LCD, 康宁大猩猩玻璃5, glossy: yes, 60 Hz
Storage
64 GB eMMC Flash, 64 GB 
, 47.5 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5毫米音频端口, Card Reader: microSD卡, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: 接近传感器,加速度传感器,陀螺仪,数字罗盘, USB C, Miracast, IR blaster, nano coating
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM: B2/3/5/8; WCDMA: B1/2/4/5/8; FDD-LTE: B1/2/3/4/5/7/8/20/28, TDD-LTE: B38/40/41, Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.9 x 162.3 x 77.2
Battery
5020 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 10
Camera
Primary Camera: 48 MPix (f / 1.8,26mm,1 / 2.0“,0.8µm)+ 8MP(f / 2.2,118˚,1 / 4.0”,1.12µm)+ 2 MP(f / 2.4)+ 2 MP( f / 2.4),Camera2 API:完整
Secondary Camera: 13 MPix (f/2.3, 29mm, 1/3.1", 1.12 µm)
Additional features
Speakers: mono, Keyboard: 虚拟, 模块化充电器,USB Type-C电缆,SIM工具,用户手册,保修卡, MiUI 12, 12 Months Warranty, Widevine L1, SAR(头:0.8 W / kg,机身:1.14 W / kg), fanless
Weight
199 g, Power Supply: 87 g
Price
199 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Comparison devices

Rating
Date
Model
Weight
Drive
Size
Resolution
Best Price
80 %
01/2021
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2
199 g64 GB eMMC Flash6.53"2340x1080
78 %
06/2020
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2
198 g32 GB eMMC Flash6.53"2340x1080
81 %
06/2020
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
SD 720G, Adreno 618
209 g128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash6.67"2400x1080
76 %
06/2020
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2
192 g32 GB eMMC Flash6.50"1600x720
78 %
06/2020
realme 6i
Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2
199 g128 GB eMMC Flash6.50"1600x720
75 %
06/2020
Sony Xperia L4
Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320
178 g64 GB eMMC Flash6.20"1680x720
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 smartphone
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 smartphone
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 smartphone
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 smartphone
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 smartphone
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 smartphone
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Average of class Smartphone
  (15.5 - 1414, n=300, last 2 years)
388 MBit/s ∼100% +9%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mali-G52 MP2, Helio G85, 64 GB eMMC Flash
355 (327min - 366max) MBit/s ∼91%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Mali-G52 MP2, Exynos 850, 32 GB eMMC Flash
326 (280min - 333max) MBit/s ∼84% -8%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mali-G52 MP2, Helio G80, 32 GB eMMC Flash
308 (290min - 337max) MBit/s ∼79% -13%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Adreno 618, SD 720G, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
286 (225min - 321max) MBit/s ∼74% -19%
Sony Xperia L4
PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762, 64 GB eMMC Flash
120 (106min - 124max) MBit/s ∼31% -66%
realme 6i
Mali-G52 MP2, Helio G80, 128 GB eMMC Flash
36.1 (9min - 57max) MBit/s ∼9% -90%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.59 - 1599, n=300, last 2 years)
373 MBit/s ∼100% +7%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mali-G52 MP2, Helio G80, 32 GB eMMC Flash
348 (325min - 355max) MBit/s ∼93% 0%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mali-G52 MP2, Helio G85, 64 GB eMMC Flash
347 (172min - 352max) MBit/s ∼93%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Mali-G52 MP2, Exynos 850, 32 GB eMMC Flash
310 (269min - 342max) MBit/s ∼83% -11%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Adreno 618, SD 720G, 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash
256 (247min - 263max) MBit/s ∼69% -26%
Sony Xperia L4
PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762, 64 GB eMMC Flash
109 (103min - 114max) MBit/s ∼29% -69%
realme 6i
Mali-G52 MP2, Helio G80, 128 GB eMMC Flash
66.5 (34min - 69max) MBit/s ∼18% -81%
020406080100120140160180200220240260280300320340360351360356366356354361341359357361360357360359355348360359360348338341333344327331328335336351360356366356354361341359357361360357360359355348360359360348338341333344327331328335336172350345346344347331348349343352347350347344347341351345347349348349348346351346344350346Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø350 (327-366)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø341 (172-352)
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Garmin Edge 500
GPS Redmi Note 9
GPS Redmi Note 9
GPS Redmi Note 9
GPS Redmi Note 9
GPS Redmi Note 9
GPS Redmi Note 9
Ultra-wide angle
Ultra-wide angle
Wide angle
Wide angle
2x zoom
2x zoom
10x zoom (max)
10x zoom (max)

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.

Wide angleLow light5x ZoomUltra wide angleWide angle
click to load images
ColorChecker
26.8 ∆E
45.8 ∆E
34.8 ∆E
38.4 ∆E
37.3 ∆E
53 ∆E
44.8 ∆E
27.7 ∆E
29.7 ∆E
23.2 ∆E
54.6 ∆E
56.6 ∆E
23.5 ∆E
43 ∆E
24.9 ∆E
59.1 ∆E
31 ∆E
40.3 ∆E
53.6 ∆E
55 ∆E
45.1 ∆E
34.8 ∆E
23.1 ∆E
13.8 ∆E
ColorChecker Xiaomi Redmi Note 9: 38.34 ∆E min: 13.83 - max: 59.12 ∆E
ColorChecker
7.5 ∆E
5.8 ∆E
5.2 ∆E
9.3 ∆E
4.9 ∆E
3.7 ∆E
4 ∆E
8.8 ∆E
5.6 ∆E
3.8 ∆E
4 ∆E
5.5 ∆E
6.1 ∆E
7 ∆E
7.9 ∆E
2.2 ∆E
3.2 ∆E
8.5 ∆E
2 ∆E
4.3 ∆E
6.3 ∆E
4.8 ∆E
2.2 ∆E
3.6 ∆E
ColorChecker Xiaomi Redmi Note 9: 5.26 ∆E min: 2 - max: 9.27 ∆E
535
cd/m²
527
cd/m²
492
cd/m²
539
cd/m²
553
cd/m²
508
cd/m²
538
cd/m²
542
cd/m²
505
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 553 cd/m² Average: 526.6 cd/m² Minimum: 1.28 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 89 %
Center on Battery: 553 cd/m²
Contrast: 4608:1 (Black: 0.12 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.8 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.6
ΔE Greyscale 2.2 | 0.64-98 Ø5.9
97.7% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.3
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
IPS LCD, 2340x1080, 6.53
Xiaomi Redmi 9
IPS LCD, 2340x1080, 6.53
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
IPS, 2400x1080, 6.67
Samsung Galaxy A21s
PLS, 1600x720, 6.50
realme 6i
IPS, 1600x720, 6.50
Sony Xperia L4
IPS, 1680x720, 6.20
Screen
-68%
-63%
-71%
-62%
-63%
Brightness middle
553
476
-14%
622
12%
540
-2%
518
-6%
429
-22%
Brightness
527
436
-17%
612
16%
509
-3%
484
-8%
404
-23%
Brightness Distribution
89
86
-3%
94
6%
91
2%
89
0%
92
3%
Black Level *
0.12
0.67
-458%
0.56
-367%
0.36
-200%
0.26
-117%
0.26
-117%
Contrast
4608
710
-85%
1111
-76%
1500
-67%
1992
-57%
1650
-64%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
3.8
3.51
8%
3.98
-5%
6.58
-73%
5.8
-53%
6.14
-62%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
8.7
9.38
-8%
7.33
16%
11.55
-33%
11
-26%
10.51
-21%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
2.2
1.5
32%
4.5
-105%
6.4
-191%
7.3
-232%
6.6
-200%
Gamma
2.3 96%
2.166 102%
2.206 100%
2.206 100%
2.23 99%
2.23 99%
CCT
6727 97%
6485 100%
7361 88%
8482 77%
8037 81%
8346 78%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
114.9

* ... 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 not detected

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9716 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 151500) 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
25.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 12.4 ms rise
↘ 13.2 ms fall
The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 46 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (24.3 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
38.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 19.6 ms rise
↘ 19.2 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 43 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (38.5 ms).
Geekbench 5.3
OpenCL Score 5.3 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1198 Points ∼59%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1124 Points ∼55% -6%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
593 Points ∼29% -51%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
  (1185 - 1198, n=2)
1192 Points ∼58% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (255 - 7514, n=88, last 2 years)
2047 Points ∼100% +71%
Vulkan Score 5.3 (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1179 Points ∼63%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1109 Points ∼59% -6%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
565 Points ∼30% -52%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
  (1163 - 1179, n=2)
1171 Points ∼62% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (72 - 6524, n=88, last 2 years)
1876 Points ∼100% +59%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1259 Points ∼66%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1281 Points ∼67% +2%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
1690 Points ∼89% +34%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1081 Points ∼57% -14%
realme 6i
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1348 Points ∼71% +7%
Sony Xperia L4
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
883 Points ∼46% -30%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
  (1259 - 1305, n=2)
1282 Points ∼67% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (248 - 4201, n=192, last 2 years)
1901 Points ∼100% +51%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
356 Points ∼64%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
363 Points ∼65% +2%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
559 Points ∼100% +57%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
182 Points ∼33% -49%
realme 6i
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
387 Points ∼69% +9%
Sony Xperia L4
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
150 Points ∼27% -58%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
  (354 - 356, n=2)
355 Points ∼64% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (58 - 1604, n=192, last 2 years)
549 Points ∼98% +54%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
8698 Points ∼99%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
8795 Points ∼100% +1%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
7673 Points ∼87% -12%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
5457 Points ∼62% -37%
realme 6i
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
8733 Points ∼99% 0%
Sony Xperia L4
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
5251 Points ∼60% -40%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
  (8655 - 8698, n=2)
8677 Points ∼99% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (82 - 15299, n=277, last 2 years)
7524 Points ∼86% -13%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
11421 Points ∼95%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
11534 Points ∼96% +1%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
9027 Points ∼75% -21%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
7113 Points ∼59% -38%
realme 6i
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
12043 Points ∼100% +5%
Sony Xperia L4
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
6909 Points ∼57% -40%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
  (11421 - 11889, n=2)
11655 Points ∼97% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2689 - 19989, n=255, last 2 years)
9602 Points ∼80% -16%
VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1375 Score ∼45%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1330 Score ∼44% -3%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
2416 Score ∼80% +76%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
994 Score ∼33% -28%
realme 6i
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1352 Score ∼45% -2%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
 
1375 Score ∼45% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (421 - 7649, n=57, last 2 years)
3026 Score ∼100% +120%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1198 Points ∼85%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1243 Points ∼88% +4%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
1410 Points ∼100% +18%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
990 Points ∼70% -17%
realme 6i
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1211 Points ∼86% +1%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
 
1198 Points ∼85% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (10 - 2169, n=215, last 2 years)
1197 Points ∼85% 0%
Graphics (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1845 Points ∼37%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1759 Points ∼35% -5%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3807 Points ∼77% +106%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1159 Points ∼23% -37%
realme 6i
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1735 Points ∼35% -6%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
 
1845 Points ∼37% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (186 - 16996, n=215, last 2 years)
4974 Points ∼100% +170%
Memory (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
2536 Points ∼59%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
2654 Points ∼62% +5%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
4295 Points ∼100% +69%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1884 Points ∼44% -26%
realme 6i
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
2542 Points ∼59% 0%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
 
2536 Points ∼59% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (434 - 9044, n=215, last 2 years)
3827 Points ∼89% +51%
System (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
5010 Points ∼73%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
4865 Points ∼71% -3%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
6828 Points ∼100% +36%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
3382 Points ∼50% -32%
realme 6i
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
4516 Points ∼66% -10%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
 
5010 Points ∼73% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1160 - 14189, n=215, last 2 years)
6137 Points ∼90% +22%
Overall (sort by value)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
Mediatek Helio G85, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
2285 Points ∼65%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
2273 Points ∼64% -1%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3542 Points ∼100% +55%
Samsung Galaxy A21s
Samsung Exynos 850, Mali-G52 MP2, 3072
1644 Points ∼46% -28%
realme 6i
Mediatek Helio G80, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
2216 Points ∼63% -3%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
 
2285 Points ∼65% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (179 - 6959, n=215, last 2 years)
3294 Points ∼93% +44%
Jetstream 2 - Total Score
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81)
48.527 Points ∼100% +62%
Average of class Smartphone (12.4 - 161, n=193, last 2 years)
46.5 Points ∼96% +55%
Xiaomi Redmi 9 (Chrome 85)
30.521 Points ∼63% +2%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
30 Points ∼62% 0%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85)
29.951 Points ∼62%
realme 6i (Chrome 81)
28.96 Points ∼60% -3%
Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84)
19.147 Points ∼39% -36%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81)
89.457 Points ∼100% +66%
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 375, n=199, last 2 years)
82.3 Points ∼92% +53%
realme 6i (Chrome 81)
54.343 Points ∼61% +1%
Xiaomi Redmi 9 (Chrome 85)
53.987 Points ∼60% 0%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
53.9 Points ∼60% 0%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85)
53.874 Points ∼60%
Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84)
28.012 Points ∼31% -48%
Speedometer 2.0 - Result
Average of class Smartphone (9 - 196, n=172, last 2 years)
47.9 runs/min ∼100% +77%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chome 81)
44.1 runs/min ∼92% +63%
Xiaomi Redmi 9 (Chrome 85)
28.1 runs/min ∼59% +4%
realme 6i (Chrome 81)
27.7 runs/min ∼58% +3%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85)
27 runs/min ∼56%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
27 runs/min ∼56% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chome 84)
15 runs/min ∼31% -44%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 194, n=214, last 2 years)
74.8 Points ∼100% +66%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81)
69 Points ∼92% +53%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85)
45 Points ∼60%
Xiaomi Redmi 9
45 Points ∼60% 0%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
45 Points ∼60% 0%
realme 6i (Chrome 81)
43 Points ∼57% -4%
Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84)
35 Points ∼47% -22%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81)
17303 Points ∼100% +68%
Average of class Smartphone (1986 - 58632, n=225, last 2 years)
15712 Points ∼91% +53%
realme 6i (Chrome 81)
10485 Points ∼61% +2%
Xiaomi Redmi 9 (Chrome 85)
10432 Points ∼60% +1%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85)
10299 Points ∼60%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
10299 Points ∼60% 0%
Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84)
4976 Points ∼29% -52%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Samsung Galaxy A21s (Chrome 84)
9174.1 ms * ∼100% -135%
Average of class Smartphone (460 - 29635, n=226, last 2 years)
4652 ms * ∼51% -19%
Xiaomi Redmi 9 (Chrome 85)
4076.3 ms * ∼44% -4%
realme 6i (Chrome 81)
3937.5 ms * ∼43% -1%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 (Chrome 85)
3901.3 ms * ∼43%
Average Mediatek Helio G85
3901 ms * ∼43% -0%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81)
2794.2 ms * ∼30% +28%

* ... smaller is better

Xiaomi Redmi Note 9Xiaomi Redmi 9Xiaomi Redmi Note 9SSamsung Galaxy A21srealme 6iSony Xperia L4Average 64 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-23%
20%
-13%
4%
-22%
-25%
30%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
63.51 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
65 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
2%
54.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-14%
66.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
5%
64.46 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
1%
62.5 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-2%
58.6 (11.2 - 83.3, n=142)
-8%
59 (1.7 - 83.3, n=205, last 2 years)
-7%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
84.37 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
84.4 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
0%
74.5 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-12%
80 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-5%
84.56 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
0%
83.5 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-1%
77.6 (21.1 - 108, n=142)
-8%
76.8 (13.4 - 154, n=205, last 2 years)
-9%
Random Write 4KB
146.94
60.71
-59%
123.6
-16%
89.5
-39%
150.87
3%
22.5
-85%
28.9 (3.4 - 147, n=161)
-80%
101 (4.31 - 319, n=285, last 2 years)
-31%
Random Read 4KB
65.13
49.09
-25%
137
110%
77.2
19%
73.46
13%
61.2
-6%
57.7 (11.4 - 149, n=161)
-11%
122 (13.5 - 325, n=285, last 2 years)
87%
Sequential Write 256KB
248.14
119.76
-52%
214.8
-13%
104.3
-58%
256.36
3%
165
-34%
177 (40 - 254, n=161)
-29%
287 (11.9 - 1321, n=285, last 2 years)
16%
Sequential Read 256KB
306.57
289.87
-5%
496.6
62%
307
0%
309.45
1%
293.4
-4%
274 (95.6 - 704, n=161)
-11%
685 (41.9 - 2037, n=285, last 2 years)
123%
PUBG mobile
0510152025303540403940394039393940404039413941403540404039403840413940404040403940404036414039413940394040404139403740404038394040394041403941404039404040374040403940404040403542404036414039403940393939404040394139414035404040394038404139404040404039404040364140394139403940404041394037404040383940403940414039414040394040403740404039404040404035424040364140404040393940404041394040394040404040404040404038404040403940404038403941393940414038394040404039414040404040404040404040404040403841404040394039403939394040403941394140354040403940384041394040404040394040403641403941394039404040413940374040403839404039404140394140403940404037404040394040404040354240403641404040403939404040413940403940404040404040404040384040404039404040384039413939404140383940404040394140404040404040404040404040404038414040303030303030303030303030303030303029303030302931283029293031302931293130302929303030303029313029303030303030303030303030303030303028303030303030303030303030303030Tooltip
; Smooth: Ø39.6 (35-42)
; Balanced: Ø39.8 (38-41)
; HD: Ø29.9 (28-31)
Real Racing 3
051015202530354045505560575656565556595755526057504555586060595060585554525557545856546059525555565553545351555857575458605040585557605754555353555254545053525354545154555255505353515553525123445250435045514447515457516059383743505249555241495053525354505351Tooltip
: Ø53 (23-60)
Dead Trigger 2
0510152025303540455055605959606060606060606060606052606059575759605960595959595560606060606060605960585859606059585547596056555959605756596060606060606060606060606060606059606060606058586058606060605860606060606060606060606060606060606060606060605960606060Tooltip
: Ø59.3 (47-60)
Max. Load
 35.8 °C35.1 °C34.2 °C 
 34.8 °C34 °C34.5 °C 
 33.5 °C32.4 °C32.2 °C 
Maximum: 35.8 °C
Average: 34.1 °C
30.5 °C32.5 °C34.4 °C
30.3 °C31.2 °C33.5 °C
30.7 °C32.4 °C32.5 °C
Maximum: 34.4 °C
Average: 32 °C
Power Supply (max.)  23.1 °C | Room Temperature 21.8 °C | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated) & Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 34.1 °C / 93 F, compared to the average of 32.9 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 35.8 °C / 96 F, compared to the average of 35.2 °C / 95 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 34.4 °C / 94 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 29.5 °C / 85 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2036.934.5252941.43121.939.4402241.75029.942.8632245.48019.343.710016.343.71251445.816016.951.320014.952.525014.155.93151058.84001163.150011.768.263010.97280011.973.710001180.1125010.279.7160011.478.9200012.879.5250012.980.9315012.581.740001384.9500013.184.5630013.478.2800015.775.21000013.576125001474.31600013.763.2SPL24.892.4N0.691.6median 13median 74.3Delta1.19.739.738.937.336.229.230.932.430.83237.323.624.521.72021.923.322.523.918.528.614.837.112.343.112.550.611.956.113.159.114.561.918.762.219.36718.269.216.46914.368.714.96814.664.715.466.316.165.116.769.717.772.818.664.819.450.320.352.763.728.779.518.1144.9median 16.4median 62.22.311hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseXiaomi Redmi Note 9Samsung Galaxy A21s
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (92.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (4.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.2% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.9% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (16.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 3% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 96% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 23% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 72% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Samsung Galaxy A21s audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (79.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 27.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.3% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.1% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 56% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 33% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 73% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 21% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.02 / 0.23 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.74 / 2.17 / 2.2 Watt
Load midlight 4.17 / 6.11 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        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.
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
5020 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi 9
5020 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
5020 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A21s
5000 mAh
realme 6i
5000 mAh
Sony Xperia L4
3580 mAh
Average Mediatek Helio G85
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-28%
-32%
-30%
23%
0%
-5%
Idle Minimum *
0.74
1.4
-89%
1.5
-103%
1.5
-103%
0.37
50%
0.74
-0%
0.909 (0.37 - 2.3, n=244, last 2 years)
-23%
Idle Average *
2.17
1.7
22%
2.1
3%
2.1
3%
1.62
25%
2.17
-0%
1.819 (0.82 - 3.94, n=244, last 2 years)
16%
Idle Maximum *
2.2
2.1
5%
2.5
-14%
2.9
-32%
1.69
23%
2.2
-0%
2.11 (0.85 - 4.2, n=244, last 2 years)
4%
Load Average *
4.17
5.7
-37%
5.2
-25%
4.6
-10%
3.61
13%
4.17
-0%
4.4 (1.94 - 8.4, n=244, last 2 years)
-6%
Load Maximum *
6.11
8.5
-39%
7.5
-23%
6.6
-8%
5.9
3%
6.11
-0%
7.12 (3.06 - 12.3, n=244, last 2 years)
-17%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Runtime
Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)
38h 14min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
14h 27min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
18h 36min
Load (maximum brightness)
5h 14min
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9
5020 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi 9
5020 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
5020 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A21s
5000 mAh
realme 6i
5000 mAh
Sony Xperia L4
3580 mAh
Battery Runtime
-2%
10%
-4%
52%
-10%
Reader / Idle
2294
2337
2%
2263
-1%
2009
-12%
H.264
1116
1171
5%
1269
14%
1087
-3%
WiFi v1.3
867
804
-7%
1187
37%
943
9%
1318
52%
783
-10%
Load
314
289
-8%
279
-11%
287
-9%

Pros

+ 1080p IPS面板对比度高
+ 快速WLAN
+ 设计和工艺
+ 续航时间长
+ 三重SIM卡插槽
+ 不错的SoC…

Cons

- ...慢速存储(eMMC)
- 打孔周围的暗影
- 没有UHD视频选项

总结——智能手机世界不错的入门产品:

In review: Redmi Note 9. Test unit provided by notebooksbilliger.de.
In review: Redmi Note 9. Test unit provided by notebooksbilliger.de.

小米在其价格合理的中端智能手机上声称:“您需要的一切”。来自深圳的中国制造商的广告口号并不完全错误,因为Redmi Note 9以约150欧元(〜178美元)的市价提供了非常好的智能手机体验-但是,我们明确建议多花20欧元(〜售价为$ 24美元)即可获得4 GB版本。

当寻找价格低于200欧元(〜237美元)的廉价智能手机时,您绝对应该考虑Redmi Note 9。

Redmi 9相比,Note机型使用了更好的扬声器和更好的主摄像头。明亮的IPS面板具有明显的对比度和更稳定的视角,带来了明显的优势,尤其是在日常操作中。此外,Note 9默认包括快速充电器。

但是,Redmi Note 9仍然是并且仍然是入门级智能手机。因此,您必须在处理器的选择,摄像头(尤其是超广角摄像头)的质量以及存储和WLAN速度方面做出一些折衷。

Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 - 09/16/2020 v7
Marcus Herbrich

Chassis
87%
Keyboard
67 / 75 → 89%
Pointing Device
89%
Connectivity
50 / 70 → 72%
Weight
88%
Battery
91%
Display
87%
Games Performance
14 / 64 → 22%
Application Performance
64 / 86 → 74%
Temperature
92%
Noise
100%
Audio
77 / 90 → 85%
Camera
66%
Average
75%
80%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebookcheck中文版(NBC中国) > 评测 > 红米Note 9智能手机评测:有着6400万四摄的红米9
Marcus Herbrich, 2021-01- 6 (Update: 2021-01- 6)