Kort testrapport Samsung Galaxy S9 Smartphone
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.
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix f/1.7, 25mm, 1/3.6", 1.22 µm
Size Comparison
Top 10 Testrapporten
» Top 10 Multimedia Notebooks
» Top 10 Gaming-Notebooks
» Top 10 Budget Office/Business-Notebooks
» Top 10 Premium Office/Business-Notebooks
» Top 10 Workstation-Laptops
» Top 10 Lichtgewicht Gaming-Notebooks
» Top 10 Subnotebooks
» Top 10 Smartphones tot €120
» Top 10 Smartphones tot €300
» Top 10 Ultrabooks
» Top 10 Convertibles
» Top 10 Tablets
» Top 10 Windows-Tablets
» Top 10 Phablets (>5.5-inch)
» Top 10 Smartphones
» Top 10 Smartphones (≤5-inch)
» Best Geteste Notebook Beeldschermen
» Top 10 Notebooks tot € 1.000Notebookcheck's Beste Notebook-Beeldschermen
» Top 10 Notebooks tot €500
» Top 10 Notebooks tot €300
Networking | |
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10 | |
Apple iPhone X | |
LG V30 | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 178, min: 237, max: 939) | |
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10 | |
LG V30 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Apple iPhone X | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 178, min: 237, max: 703) |
|
Helderheidsverdeling: 96 %
Helderheid in Batterij-modus: 529 cd/m²
Contrast: ∞:1 (Zwart: 0 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.4 | 0.8-29.43 Ø6.4
ΔE Greyscale 1.6 | 0.64-98 Ø6.6
Gamma: 2.16
Samsung Galaxy S9 Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 5.8 | Samsung Galaxy S8 Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 5.8 | Google Pixel 2 AMOLED, 1920x1080, 5 | Apple iPhone X Super AMOLED, 2436x1125, 5.8 | Huawei Mate 10 Pro OLED, 2160x1080, 6 | LG V30 OLED, 2880x1440, 6 | Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 IPS, 2160x1080, 6 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 | 2.16 111% | 2.15 112% | 2.3 104% | 2.23 108% | 2.15 112% | 2.33 103% | 2.29 105% |
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)
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: 54 % van alle geteste toestellen maakten geen gebruik van PWM om de schermhelderheid te verlagen. Als het wel werd gebruikt, werd een gemiddelde van 9986 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 588200) Hz waargenomen. |
Responstijd Scherm
↔ Responstijd Zwart naar Wit | ||
---|---|---|
6 ms ... stijging ↗ en daling ↘ gecombineerd | ↗ 3 ms stijging | |
↘ 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. » 3 % van alle toestellen zijn beter. Dit betekent dat de gemeten responstijd beter is dan het gemiddelde (26.3 ms) van alle geteste toestellen. | ||
↔ Responstijd 50% Grijs naar 80% Grijs | ||
8 ms ... stijging ↗ en daling ↘ gecombineerd | ↗ 3 ms stijging | |
↘ 5 ms daling | ||
Het scherm vertoonde snelle responstijden in onze tests en zou geschikt moeten zijn voor games. Ter vergelijking: alle testtoestellen variëren van 0.9 (minimum) tot 636 (maximum) ms. » 3 % van alle toestellen zijn beter. Dit betekent dat de gemeten responstijd beter is dan het gemiddelde (42.1 ms) van alle geteste toestellen. |
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
LG V30 | |
OnePlus 5T | |
HTC U11 | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Apple iPhone X | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 217950, max: 222290) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 273, min: 5600, max: 225663) |
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
OnePlus 5T | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 243861, max: 250577) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 48, min: 32557, max: 266981) |
PCMark for Android | |
Work 2.0 performance score (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
LG V30 | |
OnePlus 5T | |
HTC U11 | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 5291, max: 5319) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 138, min: 2152, max: 8069) | |
Work performance score (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
LG V30 | |
OnePlus 5T | |
HTC U11 | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 5736, max: 5822) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 304, min: 1908, max: 9319) |
Geekbench 4.1/4.2 | |
Compute RenderScript Score (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
LG V30 | |
OnePlus 5T | |
HTC U11 | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 6202, max: 6219) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 86, min: 912, max: 14362) | |
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
LG V30 | |
OnePlus 5T | |
HTC U11 | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Apple iPhone X | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 8786, max: 8963) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 125, min: 944, max: 10558) | |
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
LG V30 | |
OnePlus 5T | |
HTC U11 | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Apple iPhone X | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 3688, max: 3776) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 126, min: 390, max: 4265) |
3DMark | |
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
LG V30 | |
OnePlus 5T | |
HTC U11 | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Apple iPhone X | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 2469, max: 2486) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 230, min: 536, max: 3630) | |
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
LG V30 | |
OnePlus 5T | |
HTC U11 | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Apple iPhone X | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 3553, max: 3582) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 230, min: 54, max: 5122) | |
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
LG V30 | |
OnePlus 5T | |
HTC U11 | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Apple iPhone X | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 3244, max: 3256) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 238, min: 69, max: 4693) | |
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
LG V30 | |
OnePlus 5T | |
HTC U11 | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 2496, max: 2600) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 259, min: 293, max: 3642) | |
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
LG V30 | |
OnePlus 5T | |
HTC U11 | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 4569, max: 4637) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 259, min: 43, max: 8122) | |
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
LG V30 | |
OnePlus 5T | |
HTC U11 | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 3895, max: 3911) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 267, min: 55, max: 6378) | |
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
LG V30 | |
OnePlus 5T | |
HTC U11 | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Apple iPhone X | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 26226, max: 26851) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 414, min: 7150, max: 35856) | |
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
LG V30 | |
OnePlus 5T | |
HTC U11 | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Apple iPhone X | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 46610, max: 48433) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 414, min: 4150, max: 113380) | |
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
LG V30 | |
OnePlus 5T | |
HTC U11 | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Apple iPhone X | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 39745, max: 41093) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 415, min: 4577, max: 64405) |
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | |
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
LG V30 | |
OnePlus 5T | |
HTC U11 | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Apple iPhone X | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 144, max: 147) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 439, min: 11, max: 177) | |
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
LG V30 | |
OnePlus 5T | |
HTC U11 | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Apple iPhone X | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 60, max: 60) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 442, min: 14, max: 120) |
GFXBench 3.0 | |
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
LG V30 | |
OnePlus 5T | |
HTC U11 | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Apple iPhone X | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 73, max: 74) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 364, min: 1.6, max: 88.2) | |
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
LG V30 | |
OnePlus 5T | |
HTC U11 | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Apple iPhone X | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 45, max: 45) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 366, min: 4.4, max: 115) |
GFXBench 3.1 | |
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
LG V30 | |
OnePlus 5T | |
HTC U11 | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Apple iPhone X | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 46, max: 47) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 230, min: 2.4, max: 60) | |
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
LG V30 | |
OnePlus 5T | |
HTC U11 | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Apple iPhone X | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 24, max: 24) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 232, min: 4.8, max: 110) |
GFXBench 4.0 | |
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
LG V30 | |
OnePlus 5T | |
HTC U11 | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 28, max: 28) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 163, min: 2.7, max: 35) | |
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
LG V30 | |
OnePlus 5T | |
HTC U11 | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 14, max: 14) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 166, min: 2.7, max: 50) |
Lightmark - 1920x1080 1080p (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
HTC U11 | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 34, max: 35.8) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 70, min: 1.06, max: 38.7) |
Basemark X 1.1 | |
High Quality (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
HTC U11 | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 101, min: 983, max: 42335) | |
Medium Quality (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
HTC U11 | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 116, min: 3159, max: 44696) |
Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
HTC U11 | |
Google Pixel 2 | |
Apple iPhone X | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 1436, max: 1481) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 56, min: 36.3, max: 1702) |
Epic Citadel - Ultra High Quality (sorteer op waarde) | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 | |
HTC U11 | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 121, min: 23.8, max: 61.6) |
JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score | |
Apple iPhone X (IOS 11.1.1) | |
HTC U11 (Chrome 58) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 67.7, max: 69.6) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63) | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 (Samsung Browser 5.2) | |
Google Pixel 2 (Chrome 62) | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61) | |
LG V30 (Chrome 62) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 295, min: 10, max: 224) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Apple iPhone X (IOS 11.1.2) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 14760, max: 15233) | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 (Samsung Browser 5.2) | |
OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63) | |
HTC U11 (Chrome 58) | |
Google Pixel 2 (Chrome 62) | |
LG V30 (Chrome 62) | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61) | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (Chrome 53) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 431, min: 1506, max: 35255) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 450, min: 718, max: 59466) | |
LG V30 (Chrome 62) | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61) | |
Google Pixel 2 (Chrome 62) | |
OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63) | |
HTC U11 (Chrome 58) | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (Chrome 53) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 2060, max: 2078) | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 (Samsung Browser 5.2) | |
Apple iPhone X (IOS 11.1.2) |
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score | |
Apple iPhone X (Safari Mobile 11.0) | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 (Samsung Browser 5.2) | |
Google Pixel 2 (Chrome 62) | |
OnePlus 5T (Chrome 63) | |
Average Samsung Exynos 9810 (of 2, min: 163, max: 164) | |
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0) | |
HTC U11 (Chrome 58) | |
Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Chrome 61) | |
LG V30 (Chrome 62) | |
Average of class Smartphone (of 212, min: 27, max: 362) | |
Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 (Chrome 53) |
* ... 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% | 3% | -56% | |
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% | 49.5 (of 16, min: 29.5, max: 67.2) -26% | 40.7 (of 214, min: 8.29, max: 87.1) -39% | ||
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% | 66.8 (of 16, min: 34.3, max: 80.6) -16% | 59.1 (of 214, min: 13.5, max: 96.5) -25% | ||
Random Write 4KB | 23.07 | 15.25 -34% | 10.21 -56% | 79.97 247% | 15.75 -32% | 164.45 613% | 39.6 (of 21, min: 8.77, max: 152) 72% | 11.7 (of 484, min: 0.14, max: 164) -49% |
Random Read 4KB | 131 | 127.17 -3% | 78.17 -40% | 91.45 -30% | 148.54 13% | 132.27 1% | 137 (of 21, min: 78.2, max: 173) 5% | 31.4 (of 484, min: 1.59, max: 173) -76% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 206.94 | 193.23 -7% | 193.22 -7% | 206.41 0% | 208.62 1% | 208.72 1% | 194 (of 21, min: 133, max: 214) -6% | 64 (of 484, min: 2.99, max: 215) -69% |
Sequential Read 256KB | 815.43 | 792.86 -3% | 669.48 -18% | 717.33 -12% | 703.99 -14% | 732.46 -10% | 726 (of 21, min: 529, max: 819) -11% | 196 (of 484, min: 12.1, max: 832) -76% |
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 |
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
» 3% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 95% worse
» The best had a delta of 14%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 25% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 67% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%
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
» 13% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 80% worse
» The best had a delta of 14%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 45% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 47% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%
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
» 17% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 71% worse
» The best had a delta of 14%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 50% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 42% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%
Uit / Standby | ![]() ![]() |
Inactief | ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Belasting |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Key:
min: ![]() ![]() ![]() |
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% | -4% | -44% | |
Idle Minimum * | 0.65 | 0.78 -20% | 0.73 -12% | 0.99 -52% | 1.03 -58% | 0.69 -6% | 0.665 (of 2, min: 0.65, max: 0.68) -2% | 0.832 (of 521, min: 0.39, max: 3.4) -28% |
Idle Average * | 0.81 | 1.1 -36% | 1.96 -142% | 1.35 -67% | 2.4 -196% | 2.03 -151% | 0.88 (of 2, min: 0.81, max: 0.95) -9% | 1.636 (of 521, min: 0.81, max: 6.2) -102% |
Idle Maximum * | 0.92 | 1.16 -26% | 1.98 -115% | 1.37 -49% | 2.6 -183% | 2.1 -128% | 1.005 (of 2, min: 0.92, max: 1.09) -9% | 1.867 (of 521, min: 0.92, max: 6.6) -103% |
Load Average * | 4.76 | 4.15 13% | 4.82 -1% | 3.25 32% | 2.96 38% | 3.18 33% | 4.67 (of 2, min: 4.58, max: 4.76) 2% | 3.84 (of 521, min: 1.88, max: 10.8) 19% |
Load Maximum * | 5.16 | 5.12 1% | 7.15 -39% | 8.56 -66% | 6.6 -28% | 8.73 -69% | 5.16 (of 2, min: 5.16, max: 5.16) -0% | 5.36 (of 521, min: 2.49, max: 14.2) -4% |
* ... kleiner is beter
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
Contra
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 - 30-03-2018 v6
Daniel Schmidt