Notebookcheck

Kort testrapport Xiaomi Black Shark Smartphone

Florian Wimmer, 👁 Florian Schmitt, Tanja Hinum-Balaz (vertaald door Siemon Boes), 22-07-2018

De droom van elke gamer? De Xiaomi Black Shark gaming-smartphone beschikt over waterkoeling, een metalen behuizing met industrieel design en een optionele gamepad. Is dit de heilige graal voor gamers of zullen enkel excentriekelingen zich wagen aan de import uit China? Kom het te weten in dit testrapport.

Xiaomi Black Shark
Grafische kaart
Geheugen
6144 MB 
Beeldscherm
5.99 inch 2:1, 2160 x 1080 pixel 403 PPI, capacitief touchscreen, IPS, glimmend: ja
Opslag
64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash, 64 GB 
, 58 GB beschikbaar
Verbindingen
1 USB 2.0, Audio Verbindingen: audio-output via USB-C, 1 Vingerafdruklezer, Brightness Sensor, Sensoren: acceleratiesensor, gyroscoop, afstandssensor, kompas, USB-C
Netwerkmogelijkheden
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM (850/​900/​1800/​1900), UMTS (850/900/1900/2100MHz), LTE (1/3/4/5/7/8/12/38/39/40/41)), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Afmetingen
hoogte x breedte x diepte (in mm): 9.3 x 161.6 x 75.4
Batterij
15.2 Wh, 4000 mAh Lithium-Ion, Quick Charge 3.0
Besturingssysteem
Android 8.0 Oreo
Camera
Primary Camera: 12 MPix f/​1.75, fasedetectie-AF, dual-LED-flash, video's @2160p/​30fps (hoofdcamera); 20.0MP, f/​1.75, scherptediepte (secundaire camera)
Secondary Camera: 20 MPix f/​2.2, video's @1080p/​30fps
Bijkomende functionaliteiten
Luidsprekers: luidspreker aan onderzijde, Toetsenbord: virtueel toetsenbord, voeding, USB-kabel, USB-C-to-3.5-mm-adapter, SIM-tool, bumper, reinigingsdoekje, LTE Cat. 18: max. 1.2 GBit/s (download), 200 MBit/s (upload); SAR-waarde 0.523 W/kg (hoofd), fanless
Gewicht
190 g, Voeding: 68 g
Prijs
419 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Xiaomi Black Shark Gaming Phone
Xiaomi Black Shark Gaming Phone
Xiaomi Black Shark Gaming Phone
Xiaomi Black Shark Gaming Phone
Xiaomi Black Shark Gaming Phone
Xiaomi Black Shark Gaming Phone
Xiaomi Black Shark Gaming Phone

Formaat Vergelijking

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Razer Phone 2017
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
665 MBit/s ∼100% +473%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
652 MBit/s ∼98% +462%
OnePlus 6
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
609 MBit/s ∼92% +425%
Honor 10
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
210 MBit/s ∼32% +81%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=306)
210 MBit/s ∼32% +81%
Xiaomi Black Shark
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
116 MBit/s ∼17%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Razer Phone 2017
Adreno 540, 835, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
661 MBit/s ∼100% +465%
OnePlus 6
Adreno 630, 845, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
612 MBit/s ∼93% +423%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
Mali-G72 MP18, 9810, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
519 MBit/s ∼79% +344%
Honor 10
Mali-G72 MP12, Kirin 970, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
236 MBit/s ∼36% +102%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=306)
204 MBit/s ∼31% +74%
Xiaomi Black Shark
Adreno 630, 845, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
117 MBit/s ∼18%
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Overzicht
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Overzicht
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Bos
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Bos
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Brug
GPS Garmin Edge 520 – Brug
GPS Xiaomi Black Shark – Overzicht
GPS Xiaomi Black Shark – Overzicht
GPS Xiaomi Black Shark – Bos
GPS Xiaomi Black Shark – Bos
GPS Xiaomi Black Shark – Brug
GPS Xiaomi Black Shark – Brug

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 1Scene 2Scene 3
klik om beelden te laden
526
cd/m²
531
cd/m²
551
cd/m²
539
cd/m²
549
cd/m²
549
cd/m²
543
cd/m²
550
cd/m²
530
cd/m²
Helderheidsverdeling
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 551 cd/m² Gemiddelde: 540.9 cd/m² Minimum: 2.4 cd/m²
Helderheidsverdeling: 95 %
Helderheid in Batterij-modus: 549 cd/m²
Contrast: 1307:1 (Zwart: 0.42 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.08 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.2
ΔE Greyscale 6.6 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
100% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.305
Xiaomi Black Shark
IPS, 2160x1080, 5.99
Razer Phone 2017
IGZO LCD, 120 Hz, Wide Color Gamut, 1440x2560, 5.72
OnePlus 6
Optic AMOLED, 2280x1080, 6.28
Honor 10
IPS, 2280x1080, 5.84
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.2
Screen
25%
22%
20%
33%
Brightness middle
549
436
-21%
430
-22%
555
1%
565
3%
Brightness
541
417
-23%
437
-19%
537
-1%
571
6%
Brightness Distribution
95
92
-3%
87
-8%
94
-1%
96
1%
Black Level *
0.42
0.16
62%
0.39
7%
Contrast
1307
2725
108%
1423
9%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
6.08
3.88
36%
2.3
62%
2.3
62%
2.3
62%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
10.69
7.96
26%
4.6
57%
6
44%
4.8
55%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
6.6
5.8
12%
2.4
64%
3.9
41%
1.9
71%
Gamma
2.305 95%
2.45 90%
2.28 96%
2.19 100%
2.16 102%
CCT
8399 77%
7657 85%
6160 106%
6212 105%
6332 103%

* ... kleiner is beter

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

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 2358 Hz ≤ 15 % helderheid instelling

Het backlight van het scherm flikkert aan 2358 Hz (hoogstwaarschijnlijk met PWM - Pulse-Width Modulation) aan een helderheid van 15 % en lager. Boven deze helderheid zou er geen flickering / PWM mogen optreden.

De frequentie van 2358 Hz is redelijk hoog en de meeste mensen die gevoelig zijn aan flickering zouden dit dus niet mogen waarnemen of geïrriteerde ogen krijgen.

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 8943 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz waargenomen.

Responstijd Scherm

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
40 ms ... stijging ↗ en daling ↘ gecombineerd↗ 23 ms stijging
↘ 17 ms daling
Het scherm vertoonde trage responstijden in onze tests en is misschien te traag voor games.
Ter vergelijking: alle testtoestellen variëren van 0.8 (minimum) tot 240 (maximum) ms. » 96 % van alle toestellen zijn beter.
Dit betekent dat de gemeten responstijd slechter is dan het gemiddelde (25.6 ms) van alle geteste toestellen.
       Responstijd 50% Grijs naar 80% Grijs
48 ms ... stijging ↗ en daling ↘ gecombineerd↗ 25 ms stijging
↘ 23 ms daling
Het scherm vertoonde trage responstijden in onze tests en is misschien te traag voor games.
Ter vergelijking: alle testtoestellen variëren van 0.9 (minimum) tot 636 (maximum) ms. » 78 % van alle toestellen zijn beter.
Dit betekent dat de gemeten responstijd slechter is dan het gemiddelde (41 ms) van alle geteste toestellen.
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
230642 Points ∼100%
OnePlus 6
230421 Points ∼100% 0%
Honor 10
174272 Points ∼76% -24%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
222290 Points ∼96% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (162183 - 242953, n=18)
223967 Points ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (23275 - 254229, n=387)
76087 Points ∼33% -67%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
290397 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
208972 Points ∼72% -28%
OnePlus 6
266686 Points ∼92% -8%
Honor 10
205297 Points ∼71% -29%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
250577 Points ∼86% -14%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (246366 - 299878, n=22)
275958 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (17073 - 348178, n=170)
118332 Points ∼41% -59%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
8309 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
7046 Points ∼85% -15%
OnePlus 6
8282 Points ∼100% 0%
Honor 10
7046 Points ∼85% -15%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
5319 Points ∼64% -36%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (8326 - 9868, n=22)
8018 Points ∼96% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (3146 - 9868, n=255)
4555 Points ∼55% -45%
Work performance score (sorteer op waarde)
Razer Phone 2017
7968 Points ∼79%
OnePlus 6
9630 Points ∼95%
Honor 10
8530 Points ∼84%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
5822 Points ∼58%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7998 - 13211, n=20)
10123 Points ∼100%
Average of class Smartphone (6412 - 13531, n=423)
4958 Points ∼49%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
1243 Points ∼90%
Razer Phone 2017
1225 Points ∼88% -1%
OnePlus 6
1386 Points ∼100% +12%
Honor 10
1316 Points ∼95% +6%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
1109 Points ∼80% -11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (1009 - 1613, n=20)
1348 Points ∼97% +8%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1731, n=499)
698 Points ∼50% -44%
Graphics (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
5846 Points ∼74%
Razer Phone 2017
6273 Points ∼79% +7%
OnePlus 6
7949 Points ∼100% +36%
Honor 10
4397 Points ∼55% -25%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
6370 Points ∼80% +9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5846 - 8001, n=20)
7816 Points ∼98% +34%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 15969, n=499)
1737 Points ∼22% -70%
Memory (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
2871 Points ∼70%
Razer Phone 2017
4085 Points ∼100% +42%
OnePlus 6
3799 Points ∼93% +32%
Honor 10
3808 Points ∼93% +33%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2625 Points ∼64% -9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2193 - 5296, n=20)
3594 Points ∼88% +25%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 6283, n=499)
1244 Points ∼30% -57%
System (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
7105 Points ∼86%
Razer Phone 2017
5660 Points ∼69% -20%
OnePlus 6
8228 Points ∼100% +16%
Honor 10
5882 Points ∼71% -17%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
6413 Points ∼78% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4417 - 8613, n=20)
7657 Points ∼93% +8%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 12202, n=499)
2512 Points ∼31% -65%
Overall (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
3489 Points ∼81%
Razer Phone 2017
3651 Points ∼85% +5%
OnePlus 6
4308 Points ∼100% +23%
Honor 10
3374 Points ∼78% -3%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3302 Points ∼77% -5%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3291 - 4693, n=20)
4099 Points ∼95% +17%
Average of class Smartphone (150 - 6097, n=503)
1255 Points ∼29% -64%
Geekbench 4.1/4.2
Compute RenderScript Score (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
13620 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
7931 Points ∼58% -42%
Honor 10
8634 Points ∼63% -37%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
6202 Points ∼45% -54%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (10876 - 14489, n=19)
13635 Points ∼100% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (836 - 21070, n=197)
4524 Points ∼33% -67%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
8453 Points ∼94%
Razer Phone 2017
6742 Points ∼75% -20%
Honor 10
6610 Points ∼74% -22%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
8963 Points ∼100% +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (7754 - 9231, n=21)
8655 Points ∼97% +2%
Average of class Smartphone (883 - 11598, n=247)
4308 Points ∼48% -49%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
2437 Points ∼65%
Razer Phone 2017
1942 Points ∼51% -20%
Honor 10
1890 Points ∼50% -22%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3776 Points ∼100% +55%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2272 - 2500, n=21)
2417 Points ∼64% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (394 - 4824, n=248)
1270 Points ∼34% -48%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
3408 Points ∼99%
Razer Phone 2017
3157 Points ∼92% -7%
OnePlus 6
3432 Points ∼100% +1%
Honor 10
2582 Points ∼75% -24%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2469 Points ∼72% -28%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2118 - 3703, n=21)
3268 Points ∼95% -4%
Average of class Smartphone (2281 - 4216, n=352)
1642 Points ∼48% -52%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
5220 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
4049 Points ∼78% -22%
OnePlus 6
5212 Points ∼100% 0%
Honor 10
2993 Points ∼57% -43%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3582 Points ∼69% -31%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3488 - 5241, n=21)
4944 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (815 - 5241, n=352)
1186 Points ∼23% -77%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
4668 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
3810 Points ∼82% -18%
OnePlus 6
4673 Points ∼100% 0%
Honor 10
2891 Points ∼62% -38%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3256 Points ∼70% -30%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3197 - 4734, n=21)
4424 Points ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (951 - 4734, n=360)
1134 Points ∼24% -76%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
3443 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
3092 Points ∼90% -10%
OnePlus 6
3452 Points ∼100% 0%
Honor 10
2773 Points ∼80% -19%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
2496 Points ∼72% -28%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2159 - 3668, n=21)
3129 Points ∼91% -9%
Average of class Smartphone (532 - 4215, n=384)
1540 Points ∼45% -55%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
8312 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
6127 Points ∼74% -26%
OnePlus 6
8252 Points ∼99% -1%
Honor 10
3573 Points ∼43% -57%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
4637 Points ∼56% -44%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (5637 - 8312, n=21)
7818 Points ∼94% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (46 - 8312, n=384)
1632 Points ∼20% -80%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
6324 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
5030 Points ∼80% -20%
OnePlus 6
6304 Points ∼100% 0%
Honor 10
3358 Points ∼53% -47%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3895 Points ∼62% -38%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (4529 - 6454, n=21)
5843 Points ∼92% -8%
Average of class Smartphone (58 - 6454, n=392)
1387 Points ∼22% -78%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
31384 Points ∼92%
Razer Phone 2017
21521 Points ∼63% -31%
OnePlus 6
34191 Points ∼100% +9%
Honor 10
21070 Points ∼62% -33%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
26226 Points ∼77% -16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (15614 - 37475, n=21)
33400 Points ∼98% +6%
Average of class Smartphone (3958 - 37475, n=539)
12880 Points ∼38% -59%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
82423 Points ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
58360 Points ∼71% -29%
OnePlus 6
81269 Points ∼99% -1%
Honor 10
32674 Points ∼40% -60%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
46610 Points ∼57% -43%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (53794 - 84998, n=21)
80111 Points ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (2465 - 162695, n=539)
17994 Points ∼22% -78%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
60543 Points ∼97%
Razer Phone 2017
42278 Points ∼68% -30%
OnePlus 6
62241 Points ∼100% +3%
Honor 10
29111 Points ∼47% -52%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
39745 Points ∼64% -34%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (34855 - 65330, n=21)
60990 Points ∼98% +1%
Average of class Smartphone (2915 - 77599, n=540)
15114 Points ∼24% -75%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
151 fps ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
117 fps ∼77% -23%
OnePlus 6
150 fps ∼99% -1%
Honor 10
124 fps ∼82% -18%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
147 fps ∼97% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (98 - 152, n=22)
144 fps ∼95% -5%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 251, n=564)
31.4 fps ∼21% -79%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
60 fps ∼76%
Razer Phone 2017
79 fps ∼100% +32%
OnePlus 6
60 fps ∼76% 0%
Honor 10
59 fps ∼75% -2%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
60 fps ∼76% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (58 - 89, n=21)
62.7 fps ∼79% +5%
Average of class Smartphone (6.9 - 120, n=567)
25 fps ∼32% -58%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
82 fps ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
43 fps ∼52% -48%
OnePlus 6
66 fps ∼80% -20%
Honor 10
59 fps ∼72% -28%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
74 fps ∼90% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (54 - 83, n=21)
73 fps ∼89% -11%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 132, n=486)
16.8 fps ∼20% -80%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
59 fps ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
40 fps ∼68% -32%
OnePlus 6
58 fps ∼98% -2%
Honor 10
50 fps ∼85% -15%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
45 fps ∼76% -24%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (35 - 75, n=21)
55 fps ∼93% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 115, n=489)
16 fps ∼27% -73%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
60 fps ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
21 fps ∼35% -65%
OnePlus 6
56 fps ∼93% -7%
Honor 10
39 fps ∼65% -35%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
47 fps ∼78% -22%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (32 - 61, n=22)
54.4 fps ∼91% -9%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 88, n=349)
14.3 fps ∼24% -76%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
53 fps ∼98%
Razer Phone 2017
22 fps ∼41% -58%
OnePlus 6
54 fps ∼100% +2%
Honor 10
34 fps ∼63% -36%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
24 fps ∼44% -55%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (25 - 59, n=21)
46.5 fps ∼86% -12%
Average of class Smartphone (9.8 - 110, n=352)
13.9 fps ∼26% -74%
GFXBench
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
35 fps ∼100%
Razer Phone 2017
25 fps ∼71% -29%
OnePlus 6
35 fps ∼100% 0%
Honor 10
23 fps ∼66% -34%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
28 fps ∼80% -20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (25 - 35, n=21)
34 fps ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (6.3 - 54, n=280)
9.86 fps ∼28% -72%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sorteer op waarde)
Xiaomi Black Shark
31 fps ∼97%
Razer Phone 2017
15 fps ∼47% -52%
OnePlus 6
32 fps ∼100% +3%
Honor 10
20 fps ∼63% -35%
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
14 fps ∼44% -55%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (17 - 37, n=21)
28.3 fps ∼88% -9%
Average of class Smartphone (6 - 58, n=283)
8.89 fps ∼28% -71%

Legende

 
Xiaomi Black Shark Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Razer Phone 2017 Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 (8998), Qualcomm Adreno 540, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
OnePlus 6 Qualcomm Snapdragon 845, Qualcomm Adreno 630, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Honor 10 HiSilicon Kirin 970, ARM Mali-G72 MP12, 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus Samsung Exynos 9810, ARM Mali-G72 MP18, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash
Octane V2 - Total Score
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
17026 Points ∼100% +25%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (3991 - 18275, n=22)
15431 Points ∼91% +13%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
15233 Points ∼89% +11%
Xiaomi Black Shark (Firefox 61)
13663 Points ∼80%
Razer Phone 2017 (Chrome 65)
12600 Points ∼74% -8%
Honor 10 (Chrome 66)
10965 Points ∼64% -20%
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 43280, n=557)
5556 Points ∼33% -59%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (603 - 59466, n=578)
11474 ms * ∼100% -402%
Honor 10 (Chrome 66)
3899 ms * ∼34% -70%
Razer Phone 2017 (Chrome 65)
3476 ms * ∼30% -52%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (2154 - 11204, n=22)
2874 ms * ∼25% -26%
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
2445 ms * ∼21% -7%
Xiaomi Black Shark (Firefox 61)
2287 ms * ∼20%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
2077.8 ms * ∼18% +9%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
252 Points ∼100% +2%
Xiaomi Black Shark (Firefox 61)
246 Points ∼98%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (260 - 291, n=21)
233 Points ∼92% -5%
Honor 10 (Chrome 66)
182 Points ∼72% -26%
Samsung Galaxy S9 (Samsung Browser 7.0)
163 Points ∼65% -34%
Average of class Smartphone (91 - 362, n=284)
111 Points ∼44% -55%
WebXPRT 3 - ---
OnePlus 6 (Chrome 66)
98 Points ∼100% +9%
Xiaomi Black Shark (Firefox 61)
90 Points ∼92%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 (19 - 103, n=15)
84.5 Points ∼86% -6%
Honor 10 (Chrome 66)
69 Points ∼70% -23%
Average of class Smartphone (25 - 161, n=63)
63.6 Points ∼65% -29%
Samsung Galaxy S9
63 Points ∼64% -30%

* ... kleiner is beter

Xiaomi Black SharkRazer Phone 2017OnePlus 6Honor 10Samsung Galaxy S9 PlusAverage 64 GB UFS 2.1 FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-19%
-19%
17%
-16%
-14%
-71%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
52.5
67.18 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
50.2 (17.1 - 71.9, n=25)
45.5 (3.4 - 87.1, n=317)
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
79.4
79.22 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
66.4 (18 - 86.6, n=25)
63.7 (8.2 - 96.5, n=317)
Random Write 4KB
114.1
14.3
-87%
21.8
-81%
163
43%
22.74
-80%
50.5 (8.77 - 156, n=34)
-56%
16.1 (0.14 - 164, n=607)
-86%
Random Read 4KB
127.2
142.5
12%
137
8%
145.88
15%
129.68
2%
134 (78.2 - 173, n=34)
5%
38.3 (1.59 - 173, n=607)
-70%
Sequential Write 256KB
199.6
202.5
1%
201.4
1%
192.12
-4%
204.94
3%
193 (133 - 229, n=34)
-3%
79.9 (2.99 - 246, n=607)
-60%
Sequential Read 256KB
741.5
732.3
-1%
725.6
-2%
827.69
12%
818.69
10%
727 (529 - 895, n=34)
-2%
230 (12.1 - 895, n=607)
-69%
Arena of Valor
 InstellingenWaarde
 high HD60 fps
 high HD60 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Minecraft - Pocket Edition
 InstellingenWaarde
 fancy graphics, beautiful skies, 74% viewing range60 fps
  Your browser does not support the canvas element!
Max. Belasting
 49.5 °C45.3 °C43.7 °C 
 45.8 °C44.9 °C43.5 °C 
 45.6 °C45.2 °C43.3 °C 
Maximum: 49.5 °C
Gemiddelde: 45.2 °C
40.1 °C41.8 °C43.2 °C
40.4 °C42.2 °C43.6 °C
40.5 °C41.9 °C43.3 °C
Maximum: 43.6 °C
Gemiddelde: 41.9 °C
Stroomadapter (max.)  40.1 °C | Kamertemperatuur 22 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 45.2 °C / 113 F, compared to the average of 33.2 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 49.5 °C / 121 F, compared to the average of 35.7 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 43.6 °C / 110 F, compared to the average of 34.2 °C / 94 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 30.9 °C / 88 F, compared to the device average of 33.2 °C / 92 F.
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2032.736.52530.134.83130.534.44031.134.75033.737.76326.736.18024.235.110022.928.612519.430.816018.141.820017.750.425016.554.331514.255.940013.659.750013.76163012.463.280012.463.71000126412501262.3160011.563.1200011.661.4250011.457.6315011.355.6400011.353.5500011.359.8630011.561.6800011.561.71000011.556.41250011.454.71600011.352.2SPL52.324.272.9N8.80.632.2median 12median 57.6Delta1.6629.525.929.526.427.726.426.526.526.526.628.326.625.525.225.523.922.723.926.523.626.533.623.333.640.230.540.245.821.145.852.420.652.455.322.955.357.921.157.960.921.560.964.822.364.869.117.569.171.520.171.569.719.969.77018.27069.51669.570.715.770.771.614.871.669.614.569.666.914.266.968146867.813.867.868.913.968.966.51466.562.71462.758.613.858.681.229.381.251.51.251.5median 66.9median 17.5median 66.97.13.57.1hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseXiaomi Black SharkRazer Phone 2017
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Xiaomi Black Shark audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (72.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 14% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (3.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (6.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (14.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 0% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 99% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 13% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 84% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Razer Phone 2017 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 19.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (14.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 1% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 15% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 81% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Stroomgebruik
Uit / Standbydarklight 0.05 / 0.1 Watt
Inactiefdarkmidlight 0.8 / 1.5 / 2.3 Watt
Belasting midlight 4.8 / 10.1 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Xiaomi Black Shark
4000 mAh
Razer Phone 2017
4000 mAh
OnePlus 6
3300 mAh
Honor 10
3400 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3500 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 845
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-7%
23%
-15%
32%
1%
9%
Idle Minimum *
0.8
0.83
-4%
0.6
25%
1.12
-40%
0.68
15%
0.802 (0.42 - 1.8, n=19)
-0%
0.881 (0.2 - 3.4, n=635)
-10%
Idle Average *
1.5
2.11
-41%
1
33%
2.26
-51%
0.95
37%
1.722 (0.67 - 2.9, n=19)
-15%
1.721 (0.6 - 6.2, n=634)
-15%
Idle Maximum *
2.3
2.24
3%
1.6
30%
2.3
-0%
1.09
53%
2.1 (0.87 - 3.5, n=19)
9%
1.998 (0.74 - 6.6, n=635)
13%
Load Average *
4.8
4.94
-3%
4.3
10%
5.14
-7%
4.58
5%
4.79 (3.64 - 7.2, n=19)
-0%
4.03 (0.8 - 10.8, n=629)
16%
Load Maximum *
10.1
9.08
10%
8.6
15%
7.89
22%
5.16
49%
9.2 (6.2 - 12.3, n=19)
9%
5.75 (1.2 - 14.2, n=629)
43%

* ... kleiner is beter

Batterijduur
Inactief (zonder WLAN, minimale helderheid)
29h 13min
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
11h 51min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
12h 27min
Belast (maximale helderheid)
4h 13min
Xiaomi Black Shark
4000 mAh
Razer Phone 2017
4000 mAh
OnePlus 6
3300 mAh
Honor 10
3400 mAh
Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus
3500 mAh
Batterijduur
7%
3%
-17%
-17%
Reader / Idle
1753
1806
3%
1162
-34%
1343
-23%
H.264
747
791
6%
662
-11%
674
-10%
WiFi v1.3
711
762
7%
762
7%
663
-7%
521
-27%
Load
253
246
-3%
216
-15%
237
-6%

Pro

+ extreem snel
+ lage prijs
+ hoogwaardige, extravagante behuizing
+ scherm met hoge kleurdekking
+ helder scherm
+ prima camera's
+ hoge gaming-prestaties
+ lange batterijduur

Contra

- scherm met hoge framerate
- trage WiFi
- geen microSD-sleuf
- geen 3.5-mm-audiopoort
- ontbrekende LTE-banden voor Europa
- geen garantie
- intense warmteontwikkeling onder belasting
- scherm met trage responstijden
- software alleen verkrijgbaar in Engels
Onder de loep: de Xiaomi Black Shark gaming-smartphone. Testtoestel voorzien door Trading Shenzhen Shop.
Onder de loep: de Xiaomi Black Shark gaming-smartphone. Testtoestel voorzien door Trading Shenzhen Shop.

Dit is de verkorte versie van het originele artikel. Het volledige, Engelse testrapport vind je hier.

Aangezien de Xiaomi Black Shark voorlopig niet wereldwijd verkrijgbaar is, zijn andere gaming-smartphones zonder twijfel een zinvollere keuze voor Europese klanten. De Black Shark vereist dat de gebruiker de Google-services manueel installeert - en deze software is alleen verkrijgbaar in het Engels met flarden Chinees ertussen. Het blijft dan nog de vraag of de gebruiker verbinding kan krijgen met het Europese LTE-netwerk. De WiFi is traag en garantie ontbreekt.

Maar sinds wanneer is redelijkheid een criterium als het gaat over gaming? De extreem stijlvolle Xiaomi Black Shark is een van de snelste smartphones op de markt en haalt met gemak 60 fps in de meest veeleisende games. Het toestel is ook redelijk goedkoop, wat het dan toch niet zo buitensporig maakt.

De Xiaomi Black Shark is geen gaming-smartphone voor iedereen, maar het is een uitzonderlijk toestel met een overschot aan rekenkracht in een uitstekende behuizing.

Als we rechtstreeks vergelijken met de Razer Phone 2017, heeft de Black Shark als belangrijkste nadeel de lage max. fps van het scherm. De Razer Phone biedt een meer evenwichtig totaalpakket. Gebruikers zullen echter meer aandacht trekken met Xiaomi's exotisch gaming-toestel, dus we kunnen hem zeker aanbevelen aan gamers die graag uniek willen zijn en er niet voor terugschrikken om zelf de software van hun smartphone te moeten configureren.

Xiaomi Black Shark - 13-07-2018 v6
Florian Wimmer

Behuizing
90%
Toetsenbord
66 / 75 → 88%
Aanwijsapparaat
89%
Aansluitmogelijkheden
40 / 60 → 66%
Gewicht
89%
Batterij
94%
Beeldscherm
85%
Gaming-performance
64 / 63 → 100%
Applicatie-performance
66 / 70 → 94%
Temperatuur
83%
Luidheid
100%
Audio
64 / 91 → 70%
Camera
77%
Gemiddelde
77%
86%
Smartphone - Gewogen Gemiddelde

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Overzichten en testrapporten over laptops en mobieltjes > Testrapporten > Kort testrapport Xiaomi Black Shark Smartphone
Florian Wimmer, 2018-07-22 (Update: 2018-07-22)