谷歌 Pixel XL 智能手机简短评测

Name: Google Pixel XL 2016
Brand: Google

华而不实？ 高端配置，出色相机和大容量电池理应可以支持这台谷歌智能手机的高定价。而谷歌助手和大容量存储空间也是加分项。不过，这些足够吗？

Daniel Schmidt (translated by Yuchen Wang), Published 11/05/2016 🇺🇸 🇩🇪 ...

Android Google Pixel Phablet Smartphone Touchscreen

Google Pixel XL 2016 (Pixel Series)

Processor

Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro 4 x 2.15 GHz, Kryo

Graphics adapter

Qualcomm Adreno 530, Core: 653 MHz

Memory

4 GB

, LPDDR4

Display

5.50 inch 16:9, 2560 x 1440 pixel 534 PPI, 电容式，10点触控, AMOLED, 2.5D, Corning Gorilla Glass 4, glossy: yes

Storage

32 GB eMMC Flash, 32 GB

, 25.11 GB free

Connections

1 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, Audio Connections: 3.5毫米耳机接口, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: 近距感应器，加速感应器，陀螺仪，磁感仪，指纹感应器，气压计，霍尔感应器，安卓感应器组，先进x轴振动

Networking

802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5/), Bluetooth 4.2, GSM: 四频 GSM || UMTS/WCDMA: B 1/2/4/5/8 || CDMA: BC0/BC1/BC10 || FDD LTE: B 1/2/3/4/5/7/8/12/13/17/20/25/26/28/29/30 || TDD LTE: B 41, LTE, GPS

Size

height x width x depth (in mm): 8.5 x 154.7 x 75.7

Battery

3450 mAh Lithium-Ion, Battery runtime (according to manufacturer): 14 h, Talk time 3G (according to manufacturer): 32 h, Standby 3G (according to manufacturer): 550 h

Operating System

Android 7.1 Nougat

Camera

Primary Camera: 12 MPix (1.55微米像素, f/2.0 光圈)
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix (1.4微米像素, f/2.4 光圈)

Additional features

Keyboard: 触控, 电源适配器，两根USB数据线，SIM卡工具, 谷歌应用，谷歌助手, 24 Months Warranty, 头部辐射值: 0.25 W/kg, 身体辐射值: 0.44 W/kg, USB-C接口, fanless

Weight

168 g

Price

899 Euro

Links

Google homepage

Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

see all specifications

Size Comparison

Networking
iperf3 transmit AX12
Apple iPhone 7 A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe (Klaus I211)	485 MBit/s +11%
Google Pixel XL 2016 Adreno 530, SD 821, 32 GB eMMC Flash	435 MBit/s
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash	335 MBit/s -23%
LG G5 Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash	256 MBit/s -41%
iperf3 receive AX12
Apple iPhone 7 A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe (Klaus I211)	532 MBit/s +3%
Google Pixel XL 2016 Adreno 530, SD 821, 32 GB eMMC Flash	515 MBit/s
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash	281 MBit/s -45%
LG G5 Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash	257 MBit/s -50%

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 1 Scene 2 Scene 3

click to load images

click to load images

click to load images


385 cd/m²	403 cd/m²	435 cd/m²
384 cd/m²	402 cd/m²	440 cd/m²
379 cd/m²	399 cd/m²	446 cd/m²

Distribution of brightness

tested with X-Rite i1Pro 2

Maximum: 446 cd/m² (Nits) Average: 408.1 cd/m² Minimum: 6.92 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 85 %
Center on Battery: 402 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Black: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE ColorChecker Calman: 4 | ∀{0.5-29.43 Ø4.79}
ΔE Greyscale Calman: 3.2 | ∀{0.09-98 Ø5}
Gamma: 2.19
CCT: 7037 K

	Google Pixel XL 2016 AMOLED, 2560x1440, 5.5"	Google Nexus 6P AMOLED, 2560x1440, 5.7"	Apple iPhone 7 Plus IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5"	Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge Super AMOLED, 2560x1440, 5.5"	Huawei P9 Plus AMOLED, 1920x1080, 5.5"	Microsoft Lumia 950 XL AMOLED, 2560x1440, 5.7"	HTC 10 Super LCD 5, 2560x1440, 5.2"
Screen		19%	47%	43%	-20%	10%	14%
Brightness middle (cd/m²)	402	363 -10%	557 39%	554 38%	361 -10%	297 -26%	445 11%
Brightness (cd/m²)	408	365 -11%	553 36%	552 35%	366 -10%	297 -27%	434 6%
Brightness Distribution (%)	85	90 6%	97 14%	96 13%	87 2%	93 9%	93 9%
Black Level * (cd/m²)			0.35				0.36
Colorchecker dE 2000 *	4	2.34 41%	1.4 65%	1.59 60%	5.1 -28%	2.67 33%	2.8 30%
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. *	10.1		3.1 69%	2.56 75%	10 1%	3.98 61%	5.8 43%
Greyscale dE 2000 *	3.2	1.03 68%	1.3 59%	2.01 37%	5.5 -72%	2.81 12%	3.7 -16%
Gamma	2.19 ^100%	2.23 ^99%	2.21 ^100%	2.01 ^109%	2.24 ^98%	2.08 ^106%	2.31 ^95%
CCT	7037 ^92%	6429 ^101%	6667 ^97%	6321 ^103%	7388 ^88%	6379 ^102%	7164 ^91%
Contrast (:1)			1591				1236
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) (%)			63.1	82.12		66.31
Color Space (Percent of sRGB) (%)			99.83	99.98		99.79

* ... smaller is better

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

ℹ

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

238.1 Hz

The display backlight flickers at 238.1 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) .

The frequency of 238.1 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below.

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8163 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured.

Display Response Times

ℹ

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
4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 2 ms rise
4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 2 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 14 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (20.3 ms).
↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↗ 2 ms rise
4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined	↘ 2 ms fall
The screen shows very fast response rates in our tests and should be very well suited for fast-paced gaming. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 14 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (31.7 ms).

AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016	138641 Points
HTC 10	131866 Points -5%
OnePlus 3	142090 Points +2%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus	165399 Points +19%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge	128749 Points -7%
Lenovo Moto Z	129197 Points -7%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL	94122 Points -32%
Huawei P9	95743 Points -31%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	122513 Points -12%
LG G5	124244 Points -10%

Geekbench 4.0
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016	1513 Points
OnePlus 3	1754 Points +16%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus	3476 Points +130%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge	1840 Points +22%
Lenovo Moto Z	1480 Points -2%
Huawei P9	1755 Points +16%
LG G5	1674 Points +11%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016	4167 Points
OnePlus 3	4097 Points -2%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus	5630 Points +35%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge	5503 Points +32%
Lenovo Moto Z	3946 Points -5%
Huawei P9	4904 Points +18%
LG G5	3833 Points -8%

3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016	3483 Points
OnePlus 3	3595 Points +3%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus	3371 Points -3%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge	2641 Points -24%
Lenovo Moto Z	3151 Points -10%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	3367 Points -3%
LG G5	3506 Points +1%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016	4406 Points
OnePlus 3	4804 Points +9%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus	5141 Points +17%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge	3071 Points -30%
Lenovo Moto Z	3930 Points -11%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	4688 Points +6%
LG G5	4790 Points +9%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016	2009 Points
OnePlus 3	1912 Points -5%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus	1528 Points -24%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge	1773 Points -12%
Lenovo Moto Z	1860 Points -7%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	1695 Points -16%
LG G5	1809 Points -10%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016	2629 Points
OnePlus 3	2823 Points +7%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge	2234 Points -15%
Lenovo Moto Z	2363 Points -10%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	2580 Points -2%
LG G5	2593 Points -1%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016	2863 Points
OnePlus 3	3249 Points +13%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge	2394 Points -16%
Lenovo Moto Z	2588 Points -10%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	3060 Points +7%
LG G5	2952 Points +3%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016	2044 Points
OnePlus 3	1935 Points -5%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge	1811 Points -11%
Lenovo Moto Z	1813 Points -11%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	1665 Points -19%
LG G5	1819 Points -11%

GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
T-Rex Onscreen (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016	55 fps
HTC 10	43 fps -22%
OnePlus 3	60 fps +9%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus	57.7 fps +5%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge	51 fps -7%
Lenovo Moto Z	53 fps -4%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL	18.75 fps -66%
Huawei P9	43 fps -22%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	60 fps +9%
LG G5	47 fps -15%
1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016	91 fps
HTC 10	73 fps -20%
OnePlus 3	89 fps -2%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus	92 fps +1%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge	81 fps -11%
Lenovo Moto Z	77 fps -15%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL	27.11 fps -70%
Huawei P9	40 fps -56%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	91 fps 0%
LG G5	74 fps -19%

GFXBench 3.0
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016	30 fps
HTC 10	24 fps -20%
OnePlus 3	46 fps +53%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus	55.2 fps +84%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge	27 fps -10%
Lenovo Moto Z	26 fps -13%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL	11.81 fps -61%
Huawei P9	19 fps -37%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	43 fps +43%
LG G5	30 fps 0%
1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016	48 fps
HTC 10	39 fps -19%
OnePlus 3	47 fps -2%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus	58.7 fps +22%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge	38 fps -21%
Lenovo Moto Z	41 fps -15%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL	17.54 fps -63%
Huawei P9	18 fps -62%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	44 fps -8%
LG G5	42 fps -12%

GFXBench 3.1
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016	17 fps
HTC 10	14 fps -18%
OnePlus 3	30 fps +76%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus	41.5 fps +144%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge	15 fps -12%
Lenovo Moto Z	15 fps -12%
Huawei P9	11 fps -35%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	29 fps +71%
LG G5	17 fps 0%
1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016	32 fps
HTC 10	24 fps -25%
OnePlus 3	31 fps -3%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus	41.3 fps +29%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge	28 fps -12%
Lenovo Moto Z	27 fps -16%
Huawei P9	10 fps -69%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	30 fps -6%
LG G5	31 fps -3%

PCMark for Android - Work performance score (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016	4739 Points
HTC 10	5809 Points +23%
OnePlus 3	7101 Points +50%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge	4660 Points -2%
Lenovo Moto Z	7637 Points +61%
Huawei P9	7058 Points +49%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	6969 Points +47%
LG G5	5581 Points +18%

BaseMark OS II
Overall (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016	2378 Points
HTC 10	2193 Points -8%
OnePlus 3	2496 Points +5%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus	3097 Points +30%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge	2074 Points -13%
Lenovo Moto Z	2356 Points -1%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL	1465 Points -38%
Huawei P9	2025 Points -15%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	2290 Points -4%
LG G5	2079 Points -13%
System (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016	3889 Points
HTC 10	2806 Points -28%
OnePlus 3	3537 Points -9%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus	6582 Points +69%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge	4080 Points +5%
Lenovo Moto Z	3398 Points -13%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL	1386 Points -64%
Huawei P9	3930 Points +1%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	2986 Points -23%
LG G5	2925 Points -25%
Memory (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016	1677 Points
HTC 10	1772 Points +6%
OnePlus 3	2052 Points +22%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus	1319 Points -21%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge	2072 Points +24%
Lenovo Moto Z	2190 Points +31%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL	1945 Points +16%
Huawei P9	2627 Points +57%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	1983 Points +18%
LG G5	1478 Points -12%
Graphics (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016	5017 Points
HTC 10	5009 Points 0%
OnePlus 3	4813 Points -4%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus	6875 Points +37%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge	2203 Points -56%
Lenovo Moto Z	4321 Points -14%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL	2040 Points -59%
Huawei P9	1583 Points -68%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	4335 Points -14%
LG G5	4807 Points -4%
Web (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016	977 Points
HTC 10	928 Points -5%
OnePlus 3	1112 Points +14%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus	1542 Points +58%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge	994 Points +2%
Lenovo Moto Z	959 Points -2%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL	837 Points -14%
Huawei P9	1029 Points +5%
Lenovo ZUK Z2	1071 Points +10%
LG G5	900 Points -8%

Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016	621 Points
HTC 10	608 Points -2%
OnePlus 3	631 Points +2%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus	1177 Points +90%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge	733 Points +18%
Lenovo Moto Z	542 Points -13%
Huawei P9	328 Points -47%
LG G5	543 Points -13%

Basemark X 1.1
Medium Quality (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016	34695 Points
OnePlus 3	Points -100%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge	41091 Points +18%
Lenovo Moto Z	41445 Points +19%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL	33082 Points -5%
Huawei P9	29662 Points -15%
LG G5	28538 Points -18%
High Quality (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016	30724 Points
OnePlus 3	33064 Points +8%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge	32273 Points +5%
Lenovo Moto Z	33028 Points +7%
Huawei P9	16610 Points -46%
LG G5	25532 Points -17%

Lightmark - 1920x1080 1080p (sort by value)
OnePlus 3	23.32 fps
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge	13.31 fps
Lenovo Moto Z	24.33 fps
Huawei P9	7.9 fps
LG G5	25.26 fps

Epic Citadel - Ultra High Quality (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016	56.2 fps
OnePlus 3	59.6 fps +6%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge	60 fps +7%
Lenovo Moto Z	59.8 fps +6%
Huawei P9	58.6 fps +4%
LG G5	55.8 fps -1%

Legend

Google Pixel XL 2016 Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro, Qualcomm Adreno 530, 32 GB eMMC Flash

HTC 10 Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 MSM8996, Qualcomm Adreno 530, 32 GB eMMC Flash

OnePlus 3 Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 MSM8996, Qualcomm Adreno 530, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash

Apple iPhone 7 Plus Apple A10 Fusion, Apple A10 Fusion GPU / PowerVR, 128 GB NVMe

Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge Samsung Exynos 8890 Octa, ARM Mali-T880 MP12, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash

Lenovo Moto Z Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 MSM8996, Qualcomm Adreno 530, 32 GB eMMC Flash

Microsoft Lumia 950 XL Qualcomm Snapdragon 810 MSM8994, Qualcomm Adreno 430, 32 GB eMMC Flash

Huawei P9 HiSilicon Kirin 955, ARM Mali-T880 MP4, 32 GB eMMC Flash

Lenovo ZUK Z2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 MSM8996, Qualcomm Adreno 530, 64 GB eMMC Flash

LG G5 Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 MSM8996, Qualcomm Adreno 530, 32 GB eMMC Flash

Octane V2 | Mozilla Kraken 1.1 | WebXPRT 2015 | JetStream 1.1

Octane V2 - Total Score (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016 Adreno 530, SD 821, 32 GB eMMC Flash	8690 Points
HTC 10 Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash	8905 Points +2%
OnePlus 3 Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash	9155 Points +5%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe	26053 Points +200%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash	13191 Points +52%
Lenovo Moto Z Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash	7771 Points -11%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 32 GB eMMC Flash	8059 Points -7%
Huawei P9 Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash	11783 Points +36%
Lenovo ZUK Z2 Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB eMMC Flash	8436 Points -3%
LG G5 Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash	9731 Points +12%

Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016 Adreno 530, SD 821, 32 GB eMMC Flash	2654 ms *
HTC 10 Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash	3146 ms * -19%
OnePlus 3 Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash	2921 ms * -10%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe	1103 ms * +58%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash	2564 ms * +3%
Lenovo Moto Z Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash	3155 ms * -19%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 32 GB eMMC Flash	5553 ms * -109%
Huawei P9 Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash	2923 ms * -10%
Lenovo ZUK Z2 Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB eMMC Flash	3290 ms * -24%
LG G5 Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash	3461 ms * -30%

WebXPRT 2015 - Overall (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016 Adreno 530, SD 821, 32 GB eMMC Flash	126 Points
HTC 10 Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash	108 Points -14%
OnePlus 3 Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash	122 Points -3%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe	204 Points +62%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash	163 Points +29%
Lenovo Moto Z Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash	112 Points -11%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 32 GB eMMC Flash	113 Points -10%
Huawei P9 Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash	128 Points +2%
LG G5 Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash	108 Points -14%

JetStream 1.1 - Total Score (sort by value)
Google Pixel XL 2016 Adreno 530, SD 821, 32 GB eMMC Flash	55.4 Points
HTC 10 Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash	52.1 Points -6%
OnePlus 3 Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash	54.4 Points -2%
Apple iPhone 7 Plus A10 Fusion GPU, A10 Fusion, 128 GB NVMe	168.1 Points +203%
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash	75.1 Points +36%
Lenovo Moto Z Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash	47.5 Points -14%
Microsoft Lumia 950 XL Adreno 430, 810 MSM8994, 32 GB eMMC Flash	46 Points -17%
Huawei P9 Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash	68.4 Points +23%
Lenovo ZUK Z2 Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB eMMC Flash	51.7 Points -7%
LG G5 Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash	49.7 Points -10%

* ... smaller is better

	Google Pixel XL 2016 Adreno 530, SD 821, 32 GB eMMC Flash	HTC 10 Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash	OnePlus 3 Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash	Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash	Lenovo Moto Z Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash	Huawei P9 Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 32 GB eMMC Flash	Lenovo ZUK Z2 Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 64 GB eMMC Flash	LG G5 Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash
AndroBench 3-5		-3%	56%	43%	155%	42%	-47%	37%
Sequential Read 256KB (MB/s)	258.2	275.1 7%	408.7 58%	487.3 89%	439.7 70%	281.3 9%	239.4 -7%	427.6 66%
Sequential Write 256KB (MB/s)	83.4	115.6 39%	153.3 84%	145.1 74%	168.3 102%	72.2 -13%	46.52 -44%	141.3 69%
Random Read 4KB (MB/s)	87.7	29.92 -66%	137.6 57%	86.7 -1%	117.2 34%	39 -56%	21.27 -76%	89.3 2%
Random Write 4KB (MB/s)	14.56	15.89 9%	18.23 25%	15.79 8%	74.9 414%	47.45 226%	5.64 -61%	16.22 11%

Asphalt 8: Airborne
	Settings	Value
	high	30 fps
	very low	30 fps

... in comparison

Dead Trigger 2
	Settings	Value
	high	58 fps

... in comparison

Max. Load

Idle


42.3 °C	41.1 °C	34.3 °C
41.8 °C	41.1 °C	35.4 °C
39.5 °C	38.6 °C	34.7 °C

Maximum: 42.3 °C
Average: 38.8 °C


33.6 °C	36.3 °C	38.5 °C
34 °C	34.8 °C	37.3 °C
33.8 °C	35.6 °C	36.9 °C

Maximum: 38.5 °C
Average: 35.6 °C

Power Supply (max.) 33.6 °C | Room Temperature 21.3 °C | Voltcraft IR-260

(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 38.8 °C / 102 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 42.3 °C / 108 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 38.5 °C / 101 F, compared to the average of 34 °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.

Google Pixel XL 2016 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (88.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.1% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 33% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 58% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 35%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 52% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 40% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134%

Apple iPhone 7 Plus audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.7% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (6.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 44% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 48% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 35%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 62% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 31% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134%

Lenovo Moto Z audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 34.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.4% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.3% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (1.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 52% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 40% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 35%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 69% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 24% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 24%, worst was 134%

Power Consumption

Off / Standby	0.02 / 0.12 Watt
Idle	0.53 / 1.07 / 1.12 Watt
Load	5.53 / 6.26 Watt


Key: min: , med: , max: Metrahit Energy

	Google Pixel XL 2016 3450 mAh	Google Nexus 6P 3450 mAh	HTC 10 3000 mAh	Apple iPhone 7 Plus 2915 mAh	Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge 3600 mAh	Huawei P9 Plus 3400 mAh	OnePlus 3 3000 mAh
Power Consumption		-30%	-45%	-52%	-15%	-13%	-24%
Idle Minimum * (Watt)	0.53	0.83 -57%	0.68 -28%	0.77 -45%	0.63 -19%	0.87 -64%	0.57 -8%
Idle Average * (Watt)	1.07	1.09 -2%	1.49 -39%	2.04 -91%	1.1 -3%	1.2 -12%	1.24 -16%
Idle Maximum * (Watt)	1.12	1.17 -4%	1.91 -71%	2.24 -100%	1.56 -39%	1.27 -13%	1.36 -21%
Load Average * (Watt)	5.53	7.49 -35%	7.4 -34%	4.69 15%	5.95 -8%	4.69 15%	5.92 -7%
Load Maximum * (Watt)	6.26	9.51 -52%	9.71 -55%	8.66 -38%	6.7 -7%	5.63 10%	10.53 -68%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Runtime

Idle (without WLAN, min brightness)		22h 13min
WiFi Websurfing (Chrome 53)		8h 25min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p		8h 25min
Load (maximum brightness)		3h 50min

	Google Pixel XL 2016 3450 mAh	Google Nexus 6P 3450 mAh	HTC 10 3000 mAh	Apple iPhone 7 Plus 2915 mAh	Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge 3600 mAh	Huawei P9 Plus 3400 mAh	OnePlus 3 3000 mAh
Battery runtime		4%	-1%	29%	56%	21%	38%
Reader / Idle (h)	22.2	24.1 9%	21.2 -5%	30.6 38%	27.7 25%	24.1 9%	22.3 0%
H.264 (h)	8.4	8.9 6%	10.8 29%	13.6 62%	15.2 81%	12.9 54%	14.1 68%
WiFi v1.3 (h)	8.4	6.3 -25%	6.9 -18%	9.8 17%	12.2 45%	8.8 5%	14 67%
Load (h)	3.8	4.7 24%	3.4 -11%	3.8 0%	6.5 71%	4.4 16%	4.5 18%

Pros

+ 优秀的屏幕

+ 高端机身品质

+ 支持LTE Cat. 11

+ 快速无线网

+ 出色的通话品质

+ 出色的相机

+ 低辐射值

Cons

- 不支持双SIM卡

- 不支持microSD拓展

- 屏幕闪烁

- 处理器降频

In review: Google Pixel XL. Test model provided by Google Germany.

谷歌Pixel XL是一款非常优秀的智能手机。不过它的核心功能谷歌助手，并不是它值得推荐的原因。特别是这项功能很难帮助生产商说服用户接受它较高的售价。

不过，Pixel XL搭配了最新科技，强劲的处理器，大容量内存，出色的相机，高速无线网络和LTE Cat.11，以及出色的通话音质。

在设计上的感受可能因人而异。不过，让人感到遗憾的是它的存储空间无法通过microSD卡扩展，因为它的大容量版本价位高出了不少。而无限的图片云储存空间只能解决一部分的问题。另外，它的电池续航时间也需要进一步改进，这可能会通过软件更新逐渐改善，因为它所搭配的硬件理论上可以提供更好的表现。

谷歌Pixel XL支持很多先进功能。可惜它的价位也创造了新高。

谷歌Pixel XL是适合骨灰级用户的一台智能手机。它能否成功还要看广大用户的反应如何了。

注：本文是基于完整评测的缩减版本，阅读完整的英文评测，请点击这里。

Google Pixel XL 2016 - 11/02/2016 v5.1 ^(old)
Daniel Schmidt

Chassis

80%

Keyboard

70 / 75 → 94%

Pointing Device

96%

Connectivity

49 / 60 → 81%

Weight

91%

Battery

90%

Display

85%

Games Performance

62 / 63 → 98%

Application Performance

57 / 70 → 81%

Temperature

89%

Noise

100%

Audio

71 / 91 → 78%

Camera

86%

Average

79%

88%

Smartphone - Weighted Average

Price comparison

Please share our article, every link counts!

> Notebookcheck中文版（NBC中国） > 评测 > 谷歌 Pixel XL 智能手机简短评测

Daniel Schmidt, 2016-11- 5 (Update: 2024-11- 4)