红米Note 9S智能手机评测:大屏低价
Test Group
Rating | Date | Model | Weight | Drive | Size | Resolution | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 80.7 % v7 (old) | 06 / 2020 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S SD 720G, Adreno 618 | 209 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
| 76.6 % v7 (old) | 06 / 2020 | Motorola Moto G8 SD 665, Adreno 610 | 188 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.40" | 1560x720 | |
| 81.3 % v7 (old) | 04 / 2020 | Huawei P40 Lite Kirin 810, Mali-G52 MP6 | 183 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.40" | 2310x1080 | |
| 75.5 % v7 (old) | 12 / 2019 | Gigaset GS290 Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2 | 190 g | 64 GB eMMC Flash | 6.30" | 2340x1080 | |
| 80.7 % v7 (old) | 10 / 2019 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4 | 200 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.53" | 2340x1080 |
» Notebookcheck多媒体笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck游戏笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck低价办公/商务笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck高端办公/商务笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck工作站笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck亚笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck超级本产品Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck变形本产品Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck平板电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck智能手机Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck评测过最出色的笔记本电脑屏幕
» Notebookcheck售价500欧元以下笔记本电脑Top 10排名
» Notebookcheck售价300欧元以下笔记本电脑Top 10排名
Size Comparison
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Huawei P40 Lite | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Gigaset GS290 | |
| Motorola Moto G8 | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
| Huawei P40 Lite | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Gigaset GS290 | |
| Motorola Moto G8 | |


| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brightness Distribution: 94 %
Center on Battery: 622 cd/m²
Contrast: 1111:1 (Black: 0.56 cd/m²)
ΔE ColorChecker Calman: 3.98 | ∀{0.5-29.43 Ø4.78}
ΔE Greyscale Calman: 4.5 | ∀{0.09-98 Ø5}
114.9% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
Gamma: 2.206
CCT: 7361 K
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S IPS, 2400x1080, 6.7" | Motorola Moto G8 IPS, 1560x720, 6.4" | Huawei P40 Lite IPS, 2310x1080, 6.4" | Gigaset GS290 IPS, 2340x1080, 6.3" | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro IPS, 2340x1080, 6.5" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen | 15% | 0% | 11% | -1% | |
| Brightness middle (cd/m²) | 622 | 504 -19% | 478 -23% | 465 -25% | 669 8% |
| Brightness (cd/m²) | 612 | 452 -26% | 448 -27% | 460 -25% | 630 3% |
| Brightness Distribution (%) | 94 | 83 -12% | 87 -7% | 88 -6% | 87 -7% |
| Black Level * (cd/m²) | 0.56 | 0.28 50% | 0.49 12% | 0.2 64% | 0.42 25% |
| Contrast (:1) | 1111 | 1800 62% | 976 -12% | 2325 109% | 1593 43% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 3.98 | 3.84 4% | 3 25% | 5.3 -33% | 4.8 -21% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 7.33 | 6.1 17% | 5.6 24% | 7.3 -0% | 9 -23% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 4.5 | 2.7 40% | 4.1 9% | 4.2 7% | 6.2 -38% |
| Gamma | 2.206 100% | 2.235 98% | 2.26 97% | 2.09 105% | 2.24 98% |
| CCT | 7361 88% | 7125 91% | 7282 89% | 6558 99% | 7846 83% |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) (%) | 114.9 |
* ... smaller is better
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM not detected | |||
In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8125 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 24 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 9 ms rise | |
| ↘ 15 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. » 53 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (20.2 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 44 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 21 ms rise | |
| ↘ 23 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 72 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (31.6 ms). | ||
| PCMark for Android | |
| Work performance score (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Motorola Moto G8 | |
| Huawei P40 Lite | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (9027 - 13821, n=7) | |
| Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Motorola Moto G8 | |
| Huawei P40 Lite | |
| Gigaset GS290 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (7673 - 10181, n=7) | |
| AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Motorola Moto G8 | |
| Huawei P40 Lite | |
| Gigaset GS290 | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (253274 - 288306, n=5) | |
| Basemark GPU 1.1 | |
| 1920x1080 Vulkan Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
| Vulkan Medium Native (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
| 1920x1080 OpenGL Medium Offscreen (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
| VRMark - Amber Room (sort by value) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (n=1) | |
| Jetstream 2 - 2.0 Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (23.8 - 387, n=151, last 2 years) | |
| Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (37.8 - 54.4, n=4) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| Motorola Moto G8 (Chrome 81) | |
| JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
| Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (59.7 - 94.7, n=5) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| Motorola Moto G8 (Chrome 81) | |
| Speedometer 2.0 - Result 2.0 | |
| Average of class Smartphone (15.2 - 643, n=127, last 2 years) | |
| Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chome 81) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (26.8 - 45.2, n=4) | |
| Motorola Moto G8 (Chome 81) | |
| WebXPRT 3 - Overall | |
| Average of class Smartphone (38 - 380, n=35, last 2 years) | |
| Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (53 - 78, n=5) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| Motorola Moto G8 (Chrome 81) | |
| Octane V2 - Total Score | |
| Average of class Smartphone (2228 - 121337, n=199, last 2 years) | |
| Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (11846 - 17734, n=5) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| Motorola Moto G8 (Chrome 81) | |
| Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
| Motorola Moto G8 (Chrome 81) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
| Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (2532 - 3577, n=5) | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S (Chrome 81) | |
| Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
| Average of class Smartphone (257 - 28190, n=154, last 2 years) | |
* ... smaller is better
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S | Motorola Moto G8 | Huawei P40 Lite | Gigaset GS290 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | Average 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AndroBench 3-5 | -17% | 28% | -26% | 10% | -5% | 347% | |
| Sequential Read 256KB (MB/s) | 496.6 | 301 -39% | 913 84% | 274.2 -45% | 535 8% | 530 ? 7% | 2227 ? 348% |
| Sequential Write 256KB (MB/s) | 214.8 | 239 11% | 181.7 -15% | 196.8 -8% | 193.5 -10% | 212 ? -1% | 1836 ? 755% |
| Random Read 4KB (MB/s) | 137 | 57.3 -58% | 157.3 15% | 54.7 -60% | 156.2 14% | 130.6 ? -5% | 294 ? 115% |
| Random Write 4KB (MB/s) | 123.6 | 128.1 4% | 175.4 42% | 19.77 -84% | 180.4 46% | 101.2 ? -18% | 332 ? 169% |
| Sequential Read 256KB SDCard (MB/s) | 74.5 ? | 68.7 ? -8% | 82.6 ? 11% | 81.1 ? 9% | 71.6 ? -4% | 68.3 ? -8% | |
| Sequential Write 256KB SDCard (MB/s) | 54.9 ? | 48.7 ? -11% | 70.6 ? 29% | 73.9 ? 35% | 57.3 ? 4% | 53.2 ? -3% |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 39.9 °C / 104 F, compared to the average of 35.2 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 247 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 39.9 °C / 104 F, compared to the average of 34 °C / 93 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 33.4 °C / 92 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 64.7% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 64.7% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 64.7% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (119.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 88% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 3% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 35%, 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 24%, worst was 134%
Motorola Moto G8 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 62.9% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(-) | nearly no mids - on average 62.9% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(-) | nearly no highs - on average 62.9% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (0% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (120.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 89% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 2% worse
» The best had a delta of 11%, average was 35%, 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 24%, worst was 134%
| Off / Standby | |
| Idle | |
| Load |
|
Key:
min: | |
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S 5020 mAh | Motorola Moto G8 4000 mAh | Huawei P40 Lite 4200 mAh | Gigaset GS290 4700 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro 4500 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G | Average of class Smartphone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 7% | 24% | 19% | 10% | 20% | 5% | |
| Idle Minimum * (Watt) | 1.5 | 1.3 13% | 0.79 47% | 0.88 41% | 0.79 47% | 0.982 ? 35% | 0.847 ? 44% |
| Idle Average * (Watt) | 2.1 | 2 5% | 2.14 -2% | 2.05 2% | 2.32 -10% | 1.94 ? 8% | 1.435 ? 32% |
| Idle Maximum * (Watt) | 2.5 | 2.8 -12% | 2.23 11% | 2.1 16% | 2.38 5% | 2.06 ? 18% | 1.619 ? 35% |
| Load Average * (Watt) | 5.2 | 3.9 25% | 3.6 31% | 4.73 9% | 4.72 9% | 4.02 ? 23% | 7 ? -35% |
| Load Maximum * (Watt) | 7.5 | 7.2 4% | 5.17 31% | 5.61 25% | 7.68 -2% | 6.16 ? 18% | 11.3 ? -51% |
* ... smaller is better
| Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S 5020 mAh | Motorola Moto G8 4000 mAh | Huawei P40 Lite 4200 mAh | Gigaset GS290 4700 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro 4500 mAh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery runtime | -13% | -12% | -21% | -23% | |
| Reader / Idle (h) | 37.7 | 32.6 -14% | 35.9 -5% | 31.6 -16% | |
| H.264 (h) | 21.2 | 17.5 -17% | 19.6 -8% | 16.4 -23% | |
| WiFi v1.3 (h) | 19.8 | 16.5 -17% | 16.8 -15% | 15.6 -21% | 14.4 -27% |
| Load (h) | 4.7 | 4.6 -2% | 3.8 -19% | 3.5 -26% |
Pros
Cons
Verdict – A Lot to Offer
小米的Redmi Note 9S足以证明,无论是在尺寸还是在设备和连接性方面,200美元的价格都能在2020年为买带来出色的智能手机。当然,您不应期望LTE,Wi-Fi 6或NFC的性能可以达到高端智能手机的水平。
Redmi Note 9S提供的是具有多个可使用镜头的灵活多样的相机阵列。同样,不要期望与昂贵得多的高端智能手机具有相同的照片质量,但是稍微降低您的期望将足以接受您对相机系统的实际需求。
您还将获得一块巨大的电池,也是造成Redmi比较重的原因。在我们的Wi-Fi测试中,续航时间将近20小时。
小米Redmi Note 9S以低廉的价格提供了不错的相机和更长的续航时间。
屏幕亮度高,但没有相对应的高对比度。定位足够准确,可以日常使用。考虑到它的价格等级,Note 9S整体上相当强大。它在负载下不会过热,并在撰写本文时提供了最新的Android系统。
总体而言,Redmi Note 9S以低廉的价格提供了出色的功能,因此值得我们全力推荐。
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
- 05/19/2020 v7 (old)
Florian Schmitt


























