Kort testrapport Samsung Galaxy S9 Smartphone

Name: Samsung Galaxy S9
Brand: Samsung

Galactische evolutie. De Galaxy S9 is een geweldige smartphone met krachtige hardware en een uitstekende camera. Echter, Samsung heeft afgezien van een dubbele camera en ook de hoeveelheid RAM is verminderd, terwijl de prijs is gestegen. Lees hier of een overstap het waard is.

Daniel Schmidt, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, ✓ Tanja Hinum, 08-04-2018 🇺🇸 🇩🇪 ...

Android ARM Galaxy S Smartphone Touchscreen

Download your licensed rating image as PNG / SVG

Top 10 Testrapporten

» Top 10 Multimedia Notebooks
» Top 10 Gaming-Notebooks
» Top 10 Budget Gaming Laptops
» Top 10 Lichtgewicht Gaming-Notebooks
» Top 10 Premium Office/Business-Notebooks
» Top 10 Budget Office/Business-Notebooks
» Top 10 Workstation-Laptops
» Top 10 Subnotebooks
» Top 10 Ultrabooks
» Top 10 Notebooks tot €300
» Top 10 Notebooks tot €500
» Top 10 Notebooks tot € 1.000De beste notebookbeeldschermen zoals getest door Notebookcheck
» De beste notebookbeeldschermen
» Top Windows Alternatieven voor de MacBook Pro 13
» Top Windows Alternatieven voor de MacBook Pro 15
» Top Windows alternatieven voor de MacBook 12 en Air
» Top 10 best verkopende notebooks op Amazon
» Top 10 Convertible Notebooks
» Top 10 Tablets
» Top 10 Tablets tot € 250
» Top 10 Smartphones
» Top 10 Phablets (>90cm²)
» Top 10 Camera Smartphones
» Top 10 Smartphones tot €500
» Top 10 best verkopende smartphones op Amazon

Size Comparison

Networking
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
LG V30 Adreno 540, SD 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	703 MBit/s ∼100% +35%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Mali-G71 MP20, Exynos 8895, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	651 MBit/s ∼93% +25%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	627 (490^min - 666^max) MBit/s ∼89% +21%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	225 MBit/s ∼32% -57%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Mali-G72 MP18, Exynos 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	519 MBit/s ∼74%
Apple iPhone X A11 Bionic GPU, A11 Bionic, 64 GB eMMC Flash	456 MBit/s ∼65% -12%
Average of class Smartphone (5.59 - 1599, n=291, last 2 years)	405 MBit/s ∼58% -22%
Google Pixel 2 Adreno 540, SD 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	240 MBit/s ∼34% -54%
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Apple iPhone X A11 Bionic GPU, A11 Bionic, 64 GB eMMC Flash	939 MBit/s ∼100% +44%
LG V30 Adreno 540, SD 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	657 MBit/s ∼70% +1%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Mali-G72 MP18, Exynos 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	652 MBit/s ∼69%
Average of class Smartphone (15.5 - 1414, n=291, last 2 years)	412 MBit/s ∼44% -37%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	355 (105^min - 550^max) MBit/s ∼38% -46%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	338 MBit/s ∼36% -48%
Samsung Galaxy S8 Mali-G71 MP20, Exynos 8895, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	329 MBit/s ∼35% -50%
Google Pixel 2 Adreno 540, SD 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	287 MBit/s ∼31% -56%

Beeldvergelijking

Bekijk een scène en navigeer binnen het eerste beeld. Eén klik wijzigt het zoomniveau. Eén klik op het ingezoomde beeld opent het origineel in een nieuw venster. Het eerste beeld toont de verschaalde foto van het testtoestel.

Scene 1 Scene 2 Scene 3

klik om beelden te laden

klik om beelden te laden

klik om beelden te laden

Testbeeld sectie Galaxy S9 met f/2.4 diafragma

Testbeeld sectie Galaxy S9 met f/1.5 diafragma

ColorChecker Passport: Doelkleur staat in onderste helft (f/2.4 diafragma)

ColorChecker Passport: Doelkleur staat in onderste helft (f/1.5 diafragma)


518 cd/m²	528 cd/m²	529 cd/m²
541 cd/m²	529 cd/m²	526 cd/m²
518 cd/m²	530 cd/m²	524 cd/m²

Helderheidsverdeling

X-Rite i1Pro 2

Maximum: 541 cd/m² Gemiddelde: 527 cd/m² Minimum: 1.47 cd/m²
Helderheidsverdeling: 96 %
Helderheid in Batterij-modus: 529 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Zwart: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.4 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.6
ΔE Greyscale 1.6 | 0.64-98 Ø5.8
Gamma: 2.16

	Samsung Galaxy S9 Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 5.80	Samsung Galaxy S8 Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 5.80	Google Pixel 2 AMOLED, 1920x1080, 5.00	Apple iPhone X Super AMOLED, 2436x1125, 5.80	Huawei Mate 10 Pro OLED, 2160x1080, 6.00	LG V30 OLED, 2880x1440, 6.00	Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 IPS, 2160x1080, 6.00
Screen		-35%	-9%	11%	-4%	-98%	-64%
Brightness middle	529	566 7%	396 -25%	600 13%	629 19%	432 -18%	472 -11%
Brightness	527	564 7%	404 -23%	606 15%	636 21%	428 -19%	430 -18%
Brightness Distribution	96	94 -2%	91 -5%	94 -2%	94 -2%	87 -9%	87 -9%
Black Level *							0.27
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *	1.4	2.7 -93%	1.7 -21%	1.2 14%	1.7 -21%	4.18 -199%	3.5 -150%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *	4	5.4 -35%	4 -0%	3 25%	3.6 10%	8.53 -113%	5.9 -48%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *	1.6	3.1 -94%	1.3 19%	1.6 -0%	2.4 -50%	5.3 -231%	4 -150%
Gamma	2.16 ^102%	2.15 ^102%	2.3 ^96%	2.23 ^99%	2.15 ^102%	2.33 ^94%	2.29 ^96%
CCT	6358 ^102%	6335 ^103%	6483 ^100%	6707 ^97%	6337 ^103%	7487 ^87%	7048 ^92%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)		81.57
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)		99.87
Contrast							1748

* ... kleiner is beter

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

ℹ

Om de schermhelderheid te verlagen schakelen sommige laptops het backlight erg snel aan en uit. Dit gebeurt aan een dergelijk hoge frequentie dat het niet zichtbaar is voor het menselijk oog. Als de frequentie te laag is kunnen personen met gevoelige ogen geïrriteerd geraken, hoofdpijn krijgen en zelfs flickering waarnemen.

Screen flickering / PWM waargenomen

240.4 Hz

Het backlight van het scherm flikkert aan 240.4 Hz (hoogstwaarschijnlijk met PWM - Pulse-Width Modulation) .

De frequentie van 240.4 Hz is redelijk laag en de meeste mensen die gevoelig zijn aan flickering kunnen dit dus waarnemen of geïrriteerde ogen krijgen (gebruikmakend van de vermelde helderheid en lager).

Ter vergelijking: 52 % van alle geteste toestellen maakten geen gebruik van PWM om de schermhelderheid te verlagen. Als het wel werd gebruikt, werd een gemiddelde van 9706 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 151500) Hz waargenomen.

Grayscale (Profiel: Photo, kleurruimte: Adobe RGB)

ColorChecker (Profiel: Photo, kleurruimte: Adobe RGB)

Colorspace (Profiel: Photo, kleurruimte: Adobe RGB)

Verzadiging (Profiel: Photo, kleurruimte: Adobe RGB)

Grayscale (Profiel: Photo, kleurruimte: sRGB)

ColorChecker (Profiel: Photo, kleurruimte: sRGB)

Colorspace (Profiel: Photo, kleurruimte: sRGB)

Verzadiging (Profiel: Photo, kleurruimte: sRGB)

Grayscale (Profiel: Cinema, kleurruimte: DCI-P3)

ColorChecker (Profiel: Cinema, kleurruimte: DCI-P3)

Colorspace (Profiel: Cinema, kleurruimte: DCI-P3)

Verzadiging (Profiel: Cinema, kleurruimte: DCI-P3)

Grayscale (Profiel: Adaptief, kleurruimte: DCI-P3)

ColorChecker (Profiel: Adaptief, kleurruimte: DCI-P3)

Colorspace (Profiel: Adaptief, kleurruimte: DCI-P3)

Saturation (Profiel: Adaptief, kleurruimte: DCI-P3)

Grayscale (Profiel: Adaptief (geoptimaliseerd), kleurruimte: DCI-P3)

ColorChecker (Profiel: Adaptief (geoptimaliseerd), kleurruimte: DCI-P3)

Responstijd Scherm

ℹ

De responstijden van het scherm tonen hoe snel het scherm in staat is om van één kleur naar de andere te veranderen. Trage responstijden kunnen aanleiding geven tot 'nabeelden' rond bewegende objecten of het scherm wazig maken (blur). Vooral spelers van snelle 3D-games hebben baat bij een scherm met snelle responstijden.

↔ Responstijd Zwart naar Wit
6 ms ... stijging ↗ en daling ↘ gecombineerd	↗ 3 ms stijging
6 ms ... stijging ↗ en daling ↘ gecombineerd	↘ 3 ms daling
Het scherm vertoonde erg snelle responstijden in onze tests en zou zeer geschikt moeten zijn voor snelle games. Ter vergelijking: alle testtoestellen variëren van 0.8 (minimum) tot 240 (maximum) ms. » 6 % van alle toestellen zijn beter. Dit betekent dat de gemeten responstijd beter is dan het gemiddelde (24.1 ms) van alle geteste toestellen.
↔ Responstijd 50% Grijs naar 80% Grijs
8 ms ... stijging ↗ en daling ↘ gecombineerd	↗ 3 ms stijging
8 ms ... stijging ↗ en daling ↘ gecombineerd	↘ 5 ms daling
Het scherm vertoonde snelle responstijden in onze tests en zou geschikt moeten zijn voor games. Ter vergelijking: alle testtoestellen variëren van 0.8 (minimum) tot 636 (maximum) ms. » 8 % van alle toestellen zijn beter. Dit betekent dat de gemeten responstijd beter is dan het gemiddelde (38.2 ms) van alle geteste toestellen.

AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	217950 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S8	171884 Points ∼79% -21%
LG V30	173749 Points ∼80% -20%
OnePlus 5T	172124 Points ∼79% -21%
HTC U11	175032 Points ∼80% -20%
Google Pixel 2	166939 Points ∼77% -23%
Apple iPhone X	197851 Points ∼91% -9%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	177341 Points ∼81% -19%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (214090 - 222290, n=3)	218110 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (51390 - 293444, n=9, last 2 years)	161032 Points ∼74% -26%

AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	243861 Points ∼95%
OnePlus 5T	214815 Points ∼84% -12%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	204457 Points ∼80% -16%
Google Pixel 2	207530 Points ∼81% -15%
Apple iPhone X	256297 Points ∼100% +5%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	212278 Points ∼83% -13%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (236552 - 250577, n=3)	243663 Points ∼95% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (65996 - 462516, n=22, last 2 years)	246477 Points ∼96% +1%

PCMark for Android
Work performance score (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	5736 Points ∼58%
Samsung Galaxy S8	6035 Points ∼61% +5%
LG V30	6854 Points ∼69% +19%
OnePlus 5T	7739 Points ∼78% +35%
HTC U11	8295 Points ∼83% +45%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	8169 Points ∼82% +42%
Google Pixel 2	8550 Points ∼86% +49%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	8439 Points ∼85% +47%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (5736 - 6571, n=4)	6022 Points ∼60% +5%
Average of class Smartphone (2689 - 19989, n=225, last 2 years)	9969 Points ∼100% +74%
Work 2.0 performance score (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	5291 Points ∼67%
Samsung Galaxy S8	5370 Points ∼68% +1%
LG V30	5603 Points ∼71% +6%
OnePlus 5T	6595 Points ∼84% +25%
HTC U11	6828 Points ∼87% +29%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	7046 Points ∼90% +33%
Google Pixel 2	7223 Points ∼92% +37%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	6932 Points ∼88% +31%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (5184 - 5851, n=4)	5411 Points ∼69% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (82 - 15299, n=260, last 2 years)	7861 Points ∼100% +49%

BaseMark OS II
Overall (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	3285 Points ∼88%
Samsung Galaxy S8	3277 Points ∼88% 0%
LG V30	2702 Points ∼72% -18%
OnePlus 5T	3678 Points ∼98% +12%
HTC U11	3034 Points ∼81% -8%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	3527 Points ∼94% +7%
Google Pixel 2	3360 Points ∼90% +2%
Apple iPhone X	3737 Points ∼100% +14%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	3147 Points ∼84% -4%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (3110 - 3393, n=4)	3273 Points ∼88% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (323 - 6959, n=195, last 2 years)	3593 Points ∼96% +9%
System (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	6234 Points ∼61%
Samsung Galaxy S8	5386 Points ∼52% -14%
LG V30	4238 Points ∼41% -32%
OnePlus 5T	5872 Points ∼57% -6%
HTC U11	5570 Points ∼54% -11%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	5822 Points ∼57% -7%
Google Pixel 2	5918 Points ∼58% -5%
Apple iPhone X	10281 Points ∼100% +65%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	5244 Points ∼51% -16%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (5707 - 6413, n=4)	6123 Points ∼60% -2%
Average of class Smartphone (1160 - 14189, n=195, last 2 years)	6582 Points ∼64% +6%
Memory (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	2669 Points ∼64%
Samsung Galaxy S8	3039 Points ∼72% +14%
LG V30	2091 Points ∼50% -22%
OnePlus 5T	3845 Points ∼92% +44%
HTC U11	2085 Points ∼50% -22%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	3544 Points ∼84% +33%
Google Pixel 2	2942 Points ∼70% +10%
Apple iPhone X	1219 Points ∼29% -54%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	4142 Points ∼99% +55%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (2068 - 2771, n=4)	2533 Points ∼60% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (522 - 9044, n=195, last 2 years)	4199 Points ∼100% +57%
Graphics (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	6373 Points ∼69%
Samsung Galaxy S8	6096 Points ∼66% -4%
LG V30	5949 Points ∼64% -7%
OnePlus 5T	6100 Points ∼66% -4%
HTC U11	5976 Points ∼65% -6%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	5936 Points ∼64% -7%
Google Pixel 2	6052 Points ∼65% -5%
Apple iPhone X	9248 Points ∼100% +45%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	3657 Points ∼40% -43%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (6370 - 6506, n=4)	6423 Points ∼69% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (349 - 16996, n=195, last 2 years)	5565 Points ∼60% -13%
Web (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	1099 Points ∼65%
Samsung Galaxy S8	1156 Points ∼69% +5%
LG V30	1009 Points ∼60% -8%
OnePlus 5T	1329 Points ∼79% +21%
HTC U11	1221 Points ∼73% +11%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	1264 Points ∼75% +15%
Google Pixel 2	1210 Points ∼72% +10%
Apple iPhone X	1682 Points ∼100% +53%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	1234 Points ∼73% +12%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (1099 - 1300, n=4)	1160 Points ∼69% +6%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 2169, n=195, last 2 years)	1264 Points ∼75% +15%

Geekbench 4.1 - 4.4
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	3688 Points ∼86%
Samsung Galaxy S8	1997 Points ∼47% -46%
LG V30	1900 Points ∼45% -48%
OnePlus 5T	1962 Points ∼46% -47%
HTC U11	1906 Points ∼45% -48%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	1943 Points ∼46% -47%
Google Pixel 2	1924 Points ∼45% -48%
Apple iPhone X	4265 Points ∼100% +16%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	1898 Points ∼45% -49%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (3688 - 3776, n=3)	3721 Points ∼87% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (412 - 5099, n=71, last 2 years)	2602 Points ∼61% -29%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	8786 Points ∼86%
Samsung Galaxy S8	6711 Points ∼65% -24%
LG V30	6078 Points ∼59% -31%
OnePlus 5T	6670 Points ∼65% -24%
HTC U11	6443 Points ∼63% -27%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	6649 Points ∼65% -24%
Google Pixel 2	6256 Points ∼61% -29%
Apple iPhone X	10255 Points ∼100% +17%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	6792 Points ∼66% -23%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (8786 - 8963, n=3)	8874 Points ∼87% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (1163 - 14895, n=71, last 2 years)	7892 Points ∼77% -10%
Compute RenderScript Score (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	6219 Points ∼73%
Samsung Galaxy S8	8490 Points ∼99% +37%
LG V30	8016 Points ∼94% +29%
OnePlus 5T	8000 Points ∼93% +29%
HTC U11	8281 Points ∼97% +33%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	7750 Points ∼90% +25%
Google Pixel 2	7462 Points ∼87% +20%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	8572 Points ∼100% +38%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (6202 - 9059, n=3)	7160 Points ∼84% +15%
Average of class Smartphone (2166 - 12228, n=59, last 2 years)	6891 Points ∼80% +11%

3DMark
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	41093 Points ∼64%
Samsung Galaxy S8	31532 Points ∼49% -23%
LG V30	34139 Points ∼53% -17%
OnePlus 5T	42022 Points ∼65% +2%
HTC U11	40014 Points ∼62% -3%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	41618 Points ∼65% +1%
Google Pixel 2	40116 Points ∼63% -2%
Apple iPhone X	64169 Points ∼100% +56%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	30590 Points ∼48% -26%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (29994 - 41093, n=3)	36944 Points ∼58% -10%
Average of class Smartphone (2920 - 117606, n=211, last 2 years)	40124 Points ∼63% -2%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	48433 Points ∼43%
Samsung Galaxy S8	36347 Points ∼32% -25%
LG V30	55271 Points ∼49% +14%
OnePlus 5T	58097 Points ∼52% +20%
HTC U11	55725 Points ∼50% +15%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	57134 Points ∼51% +18%
Google Pixel 2	55247 Points ∼49% +14%
Apple iPhone X	112489 Points ∼100% +132%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	34008 Points ∼30% -30%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (36190 - 48433, n=3)	43744 Points ∼39% -10%
Average of class Smartphone (2177 - 224130, n=211, last 2 years)	57940 Points ∼52% +20%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	26851 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S8	21543 Points ∼80% -20%
LG V30	14601 Points ∼54% -46%
OnePlus 5T	21348 Points ∼80% -20%
HTC U11	20140 Points ∼75% -25%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	21337 Points ∼79% -21%
Google Pixel 2	20482 Points ∼76% -24%
Apple iPhone X	25633 Points ∼95% -5%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	22629 Points ∼84% -16%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (18756 - 26851, n=3)	23944 Points ∼89% -11%
Average of class Smartphone (8324 - 59268, n=211, last 2 years)	23209 Points ∼86% -14%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	3911 Points ∼79%
Samsung Galaxy S8	4015 Points ∼81% +3%
LG V30	4738 Points ∼95% +21%
OnePlus 5T	4816 Points ∼97% +23%
HTC U11	4744 Points ∼95% +21%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	4422 Points ∼89% +13%
Google Pixel 2	4977 Points ∼100% +27%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	3239 Points ∼65% -17%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (3895 - 4734, n=4)	4137 Points ∼83% +6%
Average of class Smartphone (68 - 11256, n=253, last 2 years)	3381 Points ∼68% -14%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	4569 Points ∼76%
Samsung Galaxy S8	4923 Points ∼82% +8%
LG V30	5895 Points ∼98% +29%
OnePlus 5T	5791 Points ∼96% +27%
HTC U11	5877 Points ∼97% +29%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	5599 Points ∼93% +23%
Google Pixel 2	6040 Points ∼100% +32%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	3353 Points ∼56% -27%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (4569 - 5586, n=4)	4905 Points ∼81% +7%
Average of class Smartphone (54 - 16670, n=253, last 2 years)	3977 Points ∼66% -13%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	2600 Points ∼84%
Samsung Galaxy S8	2440 Points ∼79% -6%
LG V30	2808 Points ∼91% +8%
OnePlus 5T	3031 Points ∼98% +17%
HTC U11	2832 Points ∼92% +9%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	2547 Points ∼83% -2%
Google Pixel 2	3080 Points ∼100% +18%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	2896 Points ∼94% +11%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (2496 - 3087, n=4)	2675 Points ∼87% +3%
Average of class Smartphone (607 - 5301, n=253, last 2 years)	2748 Points ∼89% +6%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	3244 Points ∼86%
Samsung Galaxy S8	3194 Points ∼85% -2%
LG V30	3635 Points ∼97% +12%
OnePlus 5T	3758 Points ∼100% +16%
HTC U11	3590 Points ∼96% +11%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	3732 Points ∼99% +15%
Google Pixel 2	3733 Points ∼99% +15%
Apple iPhone X	3138 Points ∼84% -3%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	2850 Points ∼76% -12%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (3244 - 4022, n=4)	3469 Points ∼92% +7%
Average of class Smartphone (78 - 9138, n=251, last 2 years)	2652 Points ∼71% -18%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	3553 Points ∼88%
Samsung Galaxy S8	3472 Points ∼86% -2%
LG V30	3903 Points ∼97% +10%
OnePlus 5T	4016 Points ∼100% +13%
HTC U11	3883 Points ∼96% +9%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	4034 Points ∼100% +14%
Google Pixel 2	3974 Points ∼99% +12%
Apple iPhone X	3463 Points ∼86% -3%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	2844 Points ∼71% -20%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (3553 - 4422, n=4)	3808 Points ∼94% +7%
Average of class Smartphone (62 - 11573, n=251, last 2 years)	2824 Points ∼70% -21%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	2486 Points ∼81%
Samsung Galaxy S8	2494 Points ∼81% 0%
LG V30	2931 Points ∼95% +18%
OnePlus 5T	3068 Points ∼100% +23%
HTC U11	2841 Points ∼92% +14%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	2956 Points ∼96% +19%
Google Pixel 2	3078 Points ∼100% +24%
Apple iPhone X	2361 Points ∼77% -5%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	2871 Points ∼93% +15%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (2469 - 3056, n=4)	2645 Points ∼86% +6%
Average of class Smartphone (435 - 5318, n=251, last 2 years)	2794 Points ∼91% +12%

GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	60 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy S8	60 fps ∼100% 0%
LG V30	60 fps ∼100% 0%
OnePlus 5T	60 fps ∼100% 0%
HTC U11	58 fps ∼97% -3%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	60 fps ∼100% 0%
Google Pixel 2	59 fps ∼98% -2%
Apple iPhone X	59.4 fps ∼99% -1%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	60 fps ∼100% 0%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (58 - 60, n=4)	59.5 fps ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (8.2 - 143, n=211, last 2 years)	56.4 fps ∼94% -6%
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	144 fps ∼81%
Samsung Galaxy S8	121 fps ∼68% -16%
LG V30	113 fps ∼64% -22%
OnePlus 5T	113 fps ∼64% -22%
HTC U11	91 fps ∼51% -37%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	102 fps ∼57% -29%
Google Pixel 2	112 fps ∼63% -22%
Apple iPhone X	177.4 fps ∼100% +23%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	112 fps ∼63% -22%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (80 - 147, n=4)	129 fps ∼73% -10%
Average of class Smartphone (4.3 - 322, n=211, last 2 years)	105 fps ∼59% -27%

GFXBench 3.0
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	45 fps ∼77%
Samsung Galaxy S8	41 fps ∼70% -9%
LG V30	35 fps ∼60% -22%
OnePlus 5T	53 fps ∼91% +18%
HTC U11	29 fps ∼50% -36%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	45 fps ∼77% 0%
Google Pixel 2	54 fps ∼92% +20%
Apple iPhone X	58.5 fps ∼100% +30%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	56 fps ∼96% +24%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (45 - 57, n=4)	48.5 fps ∼83% +8%
Average of class Smartphone (4.5 - 120, n=209, last 2 years)	44.6 fps ∼76% -1%
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	73 fps ∼83%
Samsung Galaxy S8	62 fps ∼70% -15%
LG V30	59 fps ∼67% -19%
OnePlus 5T	60 fps ∼68% -18%
HTC U11	51 fps ∼58% -30%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	49 fps ∼56% -33%
Google Pixel 2	52 fps ∼59% -29%
Apple iPhone X	88.2 fps ∼100% +21%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	54 fps ∼61% -26%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (73 - 76, n=4)	74 fps ∼84% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (1 - 180, n=210, last 2 years)	61.5 fps ∼70% -16%

GFXBench 3.1
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	24 fps ∼54%
Samsung Galaxy S8	23 fps ∼52% -4%
LG V30	19 fps ∼43% -21%
OnePlus 5T	37 fps ∼84% +54%
HTC U11	15 fps ∼34% -37%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	34 fps ∼77% +42%
Google Pixel 2	40 fps ∼91% +67%
Apple iPhone X	44.1 fps ∼100% +84%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	38 fps ∼86% +58%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (24 - 46, n=4)	29.8 fps ∼68% +24%
Average of class Smartphone (3.1 - 106, n=207, last 2 years)	35 fps ∼79% +46%
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	46 fps ∼94%
Samsung Galaxy S8	24 fps ∼49% -48%
LG V30	40 fps ∼82% -13%
OnePlus 5T	41 fps ∼84% -11%
HTC U11	33 fps ∼67% -28%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	34 fps ∼70% -26%
Google Pixel 2	31 fps ∼63% -33%
Apple iPhone X	48.9 fps ∼100% +6%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	37 fps ∼76% -20%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (24 - 47, n=4)	40.5 fps ∼83% -12%
Average of class Smartphone (1.4 - 121, n=207, last 2 years)	42.2 fps ∼86% -8%

GFXBench
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	14 fps ∼51%
Samsung Galaxy S8	13 fps ∼47% -7%
LG V30	13 fps ∼47% -7%
OnePlus 5T	23 fps ∼83% +64%
HTC U11	13 fps ∼47% -7%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	23 fps ∼83% +64%
Google Pixel 2	25 fps ∼90% +79%
Apple iPhone X	27.7 fps ∼100% +98%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	22 fps ∼79% +57%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (14 - 25, n=4)	17 fps ∼61% +21%
Average of class Smartphone (1.5 - 61, n=206, last 2 years)	22 fps ∼79% +57%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	28 fps ∼88%
Samsung Galaxy S8	25 fps ∼79% -11%
LG V30	24 fps ∼75% -14%
OnePlus 5T	25 fps ∼79% -11%
HTC U11	24 fps ∼75% -14%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	24 fps ∼75% -14%
Google Pixel 2	24 fps ∼75% -14%
Apple iPhone X	31.8 fps ∼100% +14%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	21 fps ∼66% -25%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (28 - 29, n=4)	28.3 fps ∼89% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (1.8 - 75, n=206, last 2 years)	25.3 fps ∼80% -10%

Lightmark - 1920x1080 1080p (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	34.04 fps ∼89%
Samsung Galaxy S8	30.64 fps ∼80% -10%
HTC U11	36.58 fps ∼95% +7%
Google Pixel 2	38.4 fps ∼100% +13%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	21.49 fps ∼56% -37%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (34 - 35.8, n=2)	34.9 fps ∼91% +3%

Basemark X 1.1
Medium Quality (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S8	43852 Points ∼98%
HTC U11	44696 Points ∼100%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	39033 Points ∼87%
High Quality (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S8	42183 Points ∼100%
HTC U11	38752 Points ∼92%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	25922 Points ∼61%

Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S9	1436 Points ∼84%
Samsung Galaxy S8	1276 Points ∼75% -11%
HTC U11	812 Points ∼48% -43%
Google Pixel 2	836 Points ∼49% -42%
Apple iPhone X	1702 Points ∼100% +19%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	788 Points ∼46% -45%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (1436 - 1481, n=3)	1466 Points ∼86% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (242 - 3575, n=58, last 2 years)	1274 Points ∼75% -11%

Epic Citadel - Ultra High Quality (sorteer op waarde)
Samsung Galaxy S8	59.8 fps ∼100%
HTC U11	60 fps ∼100%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro	59.7 fps ∼100%

Legende

Samsung Galaxy S9 Samsung Exynos 9810, ARM Mali-G72 MP18, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

Samsung Galaxy S8 Samsung Exynos 8895 Octa, ARM Mali-G71 MP20, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

LG V30 Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

OnePlus 5T Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

HTC U11 Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 64 GB eMMC Flash

Google Pixel 2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

Apple iPhone X Apple A11 Bionic, Apple A11 Bionic GPU, 64 GB eMMC Flash

Huawei Mate 10 Pro HiSilicon Kirin 970, ARM Mali-G72 MP12, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash

Average Samsung Exynos 9810

Average of class Smartphone

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

JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Apple iPhone X (IOS 11.1.1)	224 Points ∼100% +231%
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 375, n=187, last 2 years)	89.5 Points ∼40% +32%
HTC U11 (Chrome 58)	69.51 Points ∼31% +3%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)	67.721 Points ∼30%
OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63)	66.477 Points ∼30% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S8 (Samsung Browser 5.2)	65.846 Points ∼29% -3%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (62.9 - 69.6, n=4)	65.8 Points ∼29% -3%
Google Pixel 2 (Chrome 62)	64.791 Points ∼29% -4%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61)	56.63 Points ∼25% -16%
LG V30 (Chrome 62)	52.9 Points ∼24% -22%

Octane V2 - Total Score
Apple iPhone X (IOS 11.1.2)	35255 Points ∼100% +131%
Average of class Smartphone (1986 - 58632, n=205, last 2 years)	17283 Points ∼49% +13%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)	15233 Points ∼43%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (12933 - 15233, n=4)	14397 Points ∼41% -5%
Samsung Galaxy S8 (Samsung Browser 5.2)	12941 Points ∼37% -15%
OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63)	12509 Points ∼35% -18%
HTC U11 (Chrome 58)	11781 Points ∼33% -23%
Google Pixel 2 (Chrome 62)	11380 Points ∼32% -25%
LG V30 (Chrome 62)	10506 Points ∼30% -31%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61)	10406 Points ∼30% -32%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (Chrome 53)	10122 Points ∼29% -34%

Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (460 - 29635, n=208, last 2 years)	4063 ms * ∼100% -96%
LG V30 (Chrome 62)	3630 ms * ∼89% -75%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61)	3590.6 ms * ∼88% -73%
Google Pixel 2 (Chrome 62)	3414.7 ms * ∼84% -64%
OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63)	3096 ms * ∼76% -49%
HTC U11 (Chrome 58)	2760.3 ms * ∼68% -33%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (Chrome 53)	2712.9 ms * ∼67% -31%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (2060 - 3189, n=4)	2509 ms * ∼62% -21%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)	2077.8 ms * ∼51%
Samsung Galaxy S8 (Samsung Browser 5.2)	1886.6 ms * ∼46% +9%
Apple iPhone X (IOS 11.1.2)	718 ms * ∼18% +65%

WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
Apple iPhone X (Safari Mobile 11.0)	354 Points ∼100% +117%
Samsung Galaxy S8 (Samsung Browser 5.2)	194 Points ∼55% +19%
Google Pixel 2 (Chrome 62)	190 Points ∼54% +17%
OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63)	181 Points ∼51% +11%
Average of class Smartphone (165 - 285, n=21, last 2 years)	181 Points ∼51% +11%
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (163 - 202, n=3)	176 Points ∼50% +8%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)	163 Points ∼46%
HTC U11 (Chrome 58)	162 Points ∼46% -1%
Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61)	158 Points ∼45% -3%
LG V30 (Chrome 62)	138 Points ∼39% -15%
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (Chrome 53)	57 Points ∼16% -65%

* ... kleiner is beter

	Samsung Galaxy S9	Samsung Galaxy S8	LG V30	HTC U11	Xiaomi Mi Mix 2	Huawei Mate 10 Pro	Average 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash	Average of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5		-14%	-29%	27%	-8%	151%	29%	73%
Sequential Read 256KB	815.43	792.86 -3%	669.48 -18%	717.33 -12%	703.99 -14%	732.46 -10%	709 (476 - 895, n=45) -13%	740 (41.9 - 2037, n=272, last 2 years) -9%
Sequential Write 256KB	206.94	193.23 -7%	193.22 -7%	206.41 0%	208.62 1%	208.72 1%	204 (133 - 388, n=45) -1%	321 (11.9 - 1321, n=272, last 2 years) 55%
Random Read 4KB	131	127.17 -3%	78.17 -40%	91.45 -30%	148.54 13%	132.27 1%	135 (78.2 - 175, n=45) 3%	132 (13.5 - 325, n=272, last 2 years) 1%
Random Write 4KB	23.07	15.25 -34%	10.21 -56%	79.97 247%	15.75 -32%	164.45 613%	73.2 (8.77 - 168, n=45) 217%	117 (4.97 - 330, n=272, last 2 years) 407%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard	79.22 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)	63.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401) -19%	62.8 -21%	68.82 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401) -13%			68.6 (18 - 87.1, n=33) -13%	76 (13.4 - 154, n=176, last 2 years) -4%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard	67.18 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)	53.5 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401) -20%	47.2 -30%	46.25 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401) -31%			52.2 (17.1 - 71.9, n=33) -22%	58.2 (8.4 - 83.3, n=176, last 2 years) -13%

Asphalt 8: Airborne
	Instellingen	Waarde
	high	30 fps

Dead Trigger 2
	Instellingen	Waarde
	high	30 fps

Battle Bay
	Instellingen	Waarde
	full resolution	60 fps

World of Tanks Blitz
	Instellingen	Waarde
	high, 0xAA, 0xAF	60 fps

Arena of Valor
	Instellingen	Waarde
	high HD	59 fps

Shadow Fight 3
	Instellingen	Waarde
	high	59 fps

Max. Belasting

Inactief


33.4 °C	35.4 °C	35.3 °C
33.2 °C	34.6 °C	33.4 °C
33 °C	33.3 °C	32.8 °C

Maximum: 35.4 °C
Gemiddelde: 33.8 °C


31.8 °C	36.2 °C	35.5 °C
31.2 °C	33.6 °C	33.3 °C
31.3 °C	32.2 °C	32.1 °C

Maximum: 36.2 °C
Gemiddelde: 33 °C

Stroomadapter (max.) 25.5 °C | Kamertemperatuur 21.3 °C | Voltcraft IR-260

(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 33.8 °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 35.4 °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 36.2 °C / 97 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 22.9 °C / 73 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.

Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)

Samsung Galaxy S9 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.1% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.8% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 5% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 91% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 27% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 66% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Google Pixel 2 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (89.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.3% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 23% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 67% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 49% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 42% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

HTC U11 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.5% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.1% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.1% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (21.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 28% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 60% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 55% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 37% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Stroomgebruik

Uit / Standby	0 / 0.04 Watt
Inactief	0.65 / 0.81 / 0.92 Watt
Belasting	4.76 / 5.16 Watt


Key: min: , med: , max: 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.

	Samsung Galaxy S9 3000 mAh	Samsung Galaxy S8 3000 mAh	HTC U11 3000 mAh	Google Pixel 2 2700 mAh	Apple iPhone X 2716 mAh	Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 3771 mAh	Average Samsung Exynos 9810	Average of class Smartphone
Power Consumption		-14%	-62%	-40%	-85%	-64%	-49%	-67%
Idle Minimum *	0.65	0.78 -20%	0.73 -12%	0.99 -52%	1.03 -58%	0.69 -6%	0.783 (0.65 - 0.9, n=4) -20%	0.931 (0.37 - 2.5, n=224, last 2 years) -43%
Idle Average *	0.81	1.1 -36%	1.96 -142%	1.35 -67%	2.4 -196%	2.03 -151%	1.315 (0.81 - 1.9, n=4) -62%	1.852 (0.82 - 3.94, n=224, last 2 years) -129%
Idle Maximum *	0.92	1.16 -26%	1.98 -115%	1.37 -49%	2.6 -183%	2.1 -128%	1.903 (0.92 - 3.7, n=4) -107%	2.11 (0.85 - 4.2, n=224, last 2 years) -129%
Load Average *	4.76	4.15 13%	4.82 -1%	3.25 32%	2.96 38%	3.18 33%	5.76 (4.58 - 8.4, n=4) -21%	4.45 (2.1 - 8.4, n=224, last 2 years) 7%
Load Maximum *	5.16	5.12 1%	7.15 -39%	8.56 -66%	6.6 -28%	8.73 -69%	7.06 (5.16 - 10.3, n=4) -37%	7.26 (3.16 - 12.3, n=224, last 2 years) -41%

* ... kleiner is beter

Batterijduur

Inactief (zonder WLAN, minimale helderheid)		19h 42min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3 (Samsung Browser 7.0)		7h 54min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p		10h 9min
Belast (maximale helderheid)		2h 44min

	Samsung Galaxy S9 3000 mAh	Samsung Galaxy S8 3000 mAh	LG V30 3300 mAh	HTC U11 3000 mAh	Google Pixel 2 2700 mAh	Apple iPhone X 2716 mAh	Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 3771 mAh	Huawei Mate 10 Pro 4000 mAh
Batterijduur		45%	56%	9%	9%	11%	27%	79%
Reader / Idle	1182	1667 41%	1914 62%	1250 6%	1457 23%	1292 9%		1744 48%
H.264	609	771 27%	822 35%	498 -18%	564 -7%	634 4%		929 53%
WiFi v1.3	474	719 52%	774 63%	560 18%	575 21%	564 19%	600 27%	818 73%
Load	164	264 61%	267 63%	212 29%	161 -2%	180 10%		398 143%

Pro

+ Aantrekkelijk ontwerp

+ Geweldig beeldscherm

+ Snelle SoC

+ LTE Cat. 18

+ Beschermd tegen water en stof

+ Uitbreidbaar geheugen

+ Dual-SIM verkrijgbaar (Duos)

+ Goede selectie van sensoren

+ USB 3.1 met DP, HDMI en OTG

+ Geweldige camera

+ Draadloos laden

+ Ultra HD video's met 60 FPS

Contra

- Raakt oververhit onder zware belasting

- Video's met 60 FPS hebben beperkte lengte

- Geen Dual-VoLTE

- Lange laadtijden

- Vloeistofschade niet gedekt door garantie

Voor het volledige, Engelse testrapport, klik hier.

We verkiezen de Samsung Galaxy S9 boven de grotere S9+. Het apparaat is niet zo lomp en de dubbele camera is de meerprijs niet waard. Opnieuw levert de Koreaanse fabrikant een geweldige smartphone, maar de Galaxy S9 voelt eerder als een facelift voor de Galaxy S8 en het apparaat wordt nog steeds geplaagd door enkele gebreken. Vooral de looptijden zijn in vergelijking met de oude S8 aan de korte kant. Dit zal vooral steken bij consumenten die de telefoon ge-pre-ordered hebben voor de volledige prijs, aangezien zij nu alleen maar kunnen hopen dat Samsung dit probleem via een update zo spoedig mogelijk verhelpt.

Samsung moet zo spoedig mogelijk de korte batterijlevensduur verhelpen, aangezien de Galaxy S9 de potentie heeft om een geweldige smartphone te zijn.

Nog steeds is het een geweldig product: een snelle processor, geweldig beeldscherm, betere locatie voor vingerafdrukscanner, uit te breiden geheugen, goede stereo luidsprekers, stof- en waterdichte behuizing en een optionele Dual-SIM variant is slechts een greep uit de lange lijst sterke punten. Echter, bepaalde functionaliteiten die groots werden geadverteerd zoals AR Emoji en de super-slow-motion functie blijken meer speeltjes te zijn dan echt waarde toe te voegen aan het product.

Als je al in bezit bent van een Galaxy S8 is er geen reden om te upgraden naar een Galaxy S9.

Samsung Galaxy S9 - 2019-11-04 04-11-2019 v7
Daniel Schmidt

Behuizing

89%

Toetsenbord

67 / 75 → 89%

Aanwijsapparaat

97%

Aansluitmogelijkheden

67 / 70 → 96%

Gewicht

91%