Kort testrapport Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro Smartphone: veel features voor een lage prijs
Secondary Camera: 16 MPix f/2.48, 1.0µm, slow-motion selfie @120fps
Competing Devices
Evaluatie | Datum | Model | Gewicht | Drive | Formaat | Resolutie | Best Price |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
83 % | 06-2020 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro SD 720G, Adreno 618 | 209 g | 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.67" | 2400x1080 | |
80 % | 01-2020 | Samsung Galaxy A51 Exynos 9611, Mali-G72 MP3 | 172 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.50" | 2400x1080 | |
81 % | 11-2019 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro Helio G90T, Mali-G76 MP4 | 200 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.53" | 2340x1080 | |
80 % | 06-2020 | realme 6 Pro SD 720G, Adreno 618 | 195 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.60" | 2400x1080 | |
79 % | 05-2020 | Oppo A91 Helio P70, Mali-G72 MP3 | 172 g | 128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | 6.40" | 2400x1080 | |
81 % | 04-2020 | Huawei P40 Lite Kirin 810, Mali-G52 MP6 | 183 g | 128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | 6.40" | 2310x1080 |
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
Networking | |
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
Average of class Smartphone (15.5 - 1414, n=295, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Huawei P40 Lite | |
Oppo A91 | |
realme 6 Pro | |
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
Average of class Smartphone (5.59 - 1599, n=295, last 2 years) | |
Huawei P40 Lite | |
Oppo A91 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
realme 6 Pro |
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.
Tageslicht-Szene 1Tageslicht-Szene 25-facher ZoomUltraweitwinkelLowlight-Umgebung

|
Helderheidsverdeling: 92 %
Helderheid in Batterij-modus: 610 cd/m²
Contrast: 1649:1 (Zwart: 0.37 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.8 | 0.59-29.43 Ø5.6
ΔE Greyscale 2.5 | 0.64-98 Ø5.9
99.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.31
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro IPS, 2400x1080, 6.67 | Samsung Galaxy A51 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.50 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro IPS, 2340x1080, 6.53 | realme 6 Pro IPS, 2400x1080, 6.60 | Oppo A91 AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.40 | Huawei P40 Lite IPS, 2310x1080, 6.40 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | -34% | -65% | -86% | -112% | -43% | |
Brightness middle | 610 | 589 -3% | 669 10% | 442 -28% | 594 -3% | 478 -22% |
Brightness | 579 | 589 2% | 630 9% | 419 -28% | 613 6% | 448 -23% |
Brightness Distribution | 92 | 94 2% | 87 -5% | 90 -2% | 89 -3% | 87 -5% |
Black Level * | 0.37 | 0.42 -14% | 0.37 -0% | 0.49 -32% | ||
Contrast | 1649 | 1593 -3% | 1195 -28% | 976 -41% | ||
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 * | 1.8 | 2.22 -23% | 4.8 -167% | 6.1 -239% | 6.1 -239% | 3 -67% |
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. * | 3 | 8.24 -175% | 9 -200% | 9.7 -223% | 10.6 -253% | 5.6 -87% |
Greyscale DeltaE2000 * | 2.5 | 2.6 -4% | 6.2 -148% | 5.9 -136% | 7 -180% | 4.1 -64% |
Gamma | 2.31 95% | 2.111 104% | 2.24 98% | 2.35 94% | 2.28 96% | 2.26 97% |
CCT | 6864 95% | 6508 100% | 7846 83% | 7631 85% | 7370 88% | 7282 89% |
* ... kleiner is beter
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Screen flickering / PWM waargenomen | 2404 Hz | ≤ 43 % helderheid instelling | |
Het backlight van het scherm flikkert aan 2404 Hz (hoogstwaarschijnlijk met PWM - Pulse-Width Modulation) aan een helderheid van 43 % en lager. Boven deze helderheid zou er geen flickering / PWM mogen optreden. De frequentie van 2404 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: 51 % van alle geteste toestellen maakten geen gebruik van PWM om de schermhelderheid te verlagen. Als het wel werd gebruikt, werd een gemiddelde van 9728 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 151500) Hz waargenomen. |
Responstijd Scherm
↔ Responstijd Zwart naar Wit | ||
---|---|---|
25.6 ms ... stijging ↗ en daling ↘ gecombineerd | ↗ 10.8 ms stijging | |
↘ 14.8 ms daling | ||
Het scherm vertoonde relatief 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. » 46 % van alle toestellen zijn beter. Dit betekent dat de gemeten responstijd vergelijkbaar is met het gemiddelde (24.3 ms) van alle geteste toestellen. | ||
↔ Responstijd 50% Grijs naar 80% Grijs | ||
44.8 ms ... stijging ↗ en daling ↘ gecombineerd | ↗ 20.4 ms stijging | |
↘ 24.4 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 636 (maximum) ms. » 67 % van alle toestellen zijn beter. Dit betekent dat de gemeten responstijd slechter is dan het gemiddelde (38.5 ms) van alle geteste toestellen. |
Geekbench 5.3 | |
Vulkan Score 5.1 (sorteer op waarde) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
realme 6 Pro | |
Oppo A91 | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (982 - 1063, n=3) | |
Average of class Smartphone (70 - 4043, n=60, last 2 years) | |
OpenCL Score 5.1 (sorteer op waarde) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
realme 6 Pro | |
Oppo A91 | |
Huawei P40 Lite | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (1163 - 1201, n=3) | |
Average of class Smartphone (272 - 4739, n=56, last 2 years) | |
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sorteer op waarde) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
realme 6 Pro | |
Oppo A91 | |
Oppo A91 | |
Huawei P40 Lite | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (1690 - 1798, n=4) | |
Average of class Smartphone (248 - 4201, n=192, last 2 years) | |
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sorteer op waarde) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
realme 6 Pro | |
Oppo A91 | |
Oppo A91 | |
Huawei P40 Lite | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (559 - 570, n=4) | |
Average of class Smartphone (58 - 1604, n=192, last 2 years) |
PCMark for Android | |
Work 2.0 performance score (sorteer op waarde) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
realme 6 Pro | |
Oppo A91 | |
Huawei P40 Lite | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (7673 - 10181, n=4) | |
Average of class Smartphone (82 - 15299, n=274, last 2 years) | |
Work performance score (sorteer op waarde) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
realme 6 Pro | |
Huawei P40 Lite | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (9027 - 13821, n=4) | |
Average of class Smartphone (2689 - 19989, n=253, last 2 years) |
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | |
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sorteer op waarde) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
realme 6 Pro | |
Huawei P40 Lite | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (85 - 86, n=3) | |
Average of class Smartphone (4.3 - 322, n=228, last 2 years) | |
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sorteer op waarde) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
realme 6 Pro | |
Huawei P40 Lite | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (59 - 60, n=3) | |
Average of class Smartphone (8.2 - 143, n=228, last 2 years) |
GFXBench 3.0 | |
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sorteer op waarde) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
realme 6 Pro | |
Huawei P40 Lite | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (41 - 42, n=3) | |
Average of class Smartphone (1 - 180, n=227, last 2 years) | |
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sorteer op waarde) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
realme 6 Pro | |
Huawei P40 Lite | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (37 - 39, n=3) | |
Average of class Smartphone (4.5 - 120, n=226, last 2 years) |
GFXBench 3.1 | |
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sorteer op waarde) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
realme 6 Pro | |
Huawei P40 Lite | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (30 - 31, n=3) | |
Average of class Smartphone (1.4 - 117, n=224, last 2 years) | |
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sorteer op waarde) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
realme 6 Pro | |
Huawei P40 Lite | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (27 - 29, n=3) | |
Average of class Smartphone (3.1 - 106, n=224, last 2 years) |
AnTuTu v8 - Total Score (sorteer op waarde) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | |
realme 6 Pro | |
Huawei P40 Lite | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (271934 - 275931, n=3) | |
Average of class Smartphone (53335 - 727247, n=166, last 2 years) |
Jetstream 2 - Total Score | |
Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (47.9 - 48.5, n=2) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
Average of class Smartphone (12.4 - 161, n=191, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
realme 6 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (86.8 - 89.6, n=3) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 375, n=199, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) |
Speedometer 2.0 - Result | |
Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
Average of class Smartphone (9 - 196, n=170, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (44.1 - 45.2, n=2) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) |
WebXPRT 3 - --- | |
Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 194, n=212, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (67 - 71, n=3) | |
realme 6 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (17157 - 17303, n=3) | |
realme 6 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
Average of class Smartphone (1986 - 58632, n=223, last 2 years) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score | |
Average of class Smartphone (460 - 29635, n=224, last 2 years) | |
Samsung Galaxy A51 (Chrome 79) | |
realme 6 Pro (Chrome 83) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro (Chrome 78) | |
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G (2794 - 3033, n=3) | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro (Chrome 80.0.3987.99) | |
Huawei P40 Lite (Huawei Browser 10.1.0.300) |
* ... kleiner is beter
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro | Samsung Galaxy A51 | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro | realme 6 Pro | Oppo A91 | Huawei P40 Lite | Average 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | -1% | 17% | 19% | -6% | 35% | -6% | 17% | |
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 54.94 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | 60.1 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 9% | 57.33 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 4% | 63.43 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 15% | 60.3 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401) 10% | 70.6 (Nano Memory Card) 29% | 55.4 (33.3 - 65.3, n=10) 1% | 59 (1.7 - 83.3, n=203, last 2 years) 7% |
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 76.65 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) | 73 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) -5% | 71.61 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) -7% | 86.38 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501) 13% | 77.21 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401) 1% | 82.63 (Nano Memory Card) 8% | 73.4 (36.8 - 85.4, n=10) -4% | 76.8 (13.4 - 154, n=203, last 2 years) 0% |
Random Write 4KB | 112.93 | 104.4 -8% | 180.4 60% | 154 36% | 28.55 -75% | 175.45 55% | 78.1 (13.6 - 196, n=15) -31% | 103 (4.31 - 319, n=281, last 2 years) -9% |
Random Read 4KB | 122.58 | 110.8 -10% | 156.22 27% | 158.66 29% | 145.64 19% | 157.32 28% | 115 (60.6 - 157, n=15) -6% | 122 (13.5 - 325, n=281, last 2 years) 0% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 171.09 | 184.9 8% | 193.54 13% | 203.28 19% | 185.26 8% | 181.69 6% | 182 (135 - 222, n=15) 6% | 288 (11.9 - 1321, n=281, last 2 years) 68% |
Sequential Read 256KB | 498.15 | 496.1 0% | 534.5 7% | 512.61 3% | 505.44 1% | 912.99 83% | 491 (272 - 687, n=15) -1% | 686 (41.9 - 2037, n=281, last 2 years) 38% |
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 38.4 °C / 101 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 38.5 °C / 101 F, compared to the average of 33.8 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.1 °C / 81 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 30.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 22% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 67% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, 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%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (79.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.3% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 54% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 35% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 71% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 22% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%
Uit / Standby | ![]() ![]() |
Inactief | ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Belasting |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro 5020 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A51 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro 4500 mAh | realme 6 Pro 4300 mAh | Oppo A91 4025 mAh | Huawei P40 Lite 4200 mAh | Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G | Average of class Smartphone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | -5% | -14% | -11% | 15% | 3% | -15% | -7% | |
Idle Minimum * | 0.75 | 0.9 -20% | 0.79 -5% | 0.92 -23% | 0.82 -9% | 0.79 -5% | 1.057 (0.75 - 1.5, n=3) -41% | 0.917 (0.37 - 2.3, n=240, last 2 years) -22% |
Idle Average * | 2.19 | 1.7 22% | 2.32 -6% | 1.79 18% | 1.73 21% | 2.14 2% | 2.03 (1.79 - 2.19, n=3) 7% | 1.83 (0.82 - 3.94, n=240, last 2 years) 16% |
Idle Maximum * | 2.24 | 1.8 20% | 2.38 -6% | 1.88 16% | 1.75 22% | 2.23 -0% | 2.21 (1.88 - 2.5, n=3) 1% | 2.13 (0.85 - 4.2, n=240, last 2 years) 5% |
Load Average * | 3.88 | 5.2 -34% | 4.72 -22% | 5.41 -39% | 2.33 40% | 3.6 7% | 4.83 (3.88 - 5.41, n=3) -24% | 4.42 (2.1 - 8.4, n=240, last 2 years) -14% |
Load Maximum * | 5.97 | 6.6 -11% | 7.68 -29% | 7.59 -27% | 5.97 -0% | 5.17 13% | 7.02 (5.97 - 7.59, n=3) -18% | 7.14 (3.16 - 12.3, n=240, last 2 years) -20% |
* ... kleiner is beter
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro 5020 mAh | Samsung Galaxy A51 4000 mAh | Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro 4500 mAh | realme 6 Pro 4300 mAh | Oppo A91 4025 mAh | Huawei P40 Lite 4200 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Batterijduur | -24% | -21% | -12% | -49% | -10% | |
Reader / Idle | 2336 | 1689 -28% | 1893 -19% | 2154 -8% | ||
H.264 | 1096 | 846 -23% | 984 -10% | 1176 7% | ||
WiFi v1.3 | 1175 | 698 -41% | 864 -26% | 1031 -12% | 605 -49% | 1007 -14% |
Load | 303 | 289 -5% | 212 -30% | 228 -25% |
Pro
Contra
Dit is de verkorte versie van het originele artikel. Het volledige, Engelse testrapport vind je hier.
Met de Redmi Note 9 Pro heeft Xiaomi weer een smartphone toegevoegd die uitblinkt met een geweldige prijs-prestatieverhouding.
Voor 250 euro (~282 dollar) biedt het veel: Een helder, 6,67-inch IPS-scherm, 6 GB RAM, 64 of 128 GB interne opslag, de snelle octa-core Snapdragon 720G SoC en een quad-camerasysteem met een resolutie van 64 MP. Dankzij de 5020-mAh batterij bereikt de Redmi Note 9 Pro uitstekende runtimes, de 33-watt voedingsadapter laadt de smartphone snel op en er zijn handige extra's zoals een grote kaartlade die tegelijkertijd een microSD en twee SIM-kaarten accepteert.
De Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro biedt veel waarde voor zijn geld, terwijl de lange batterijduur en extra functies zoals NFC hem doen opvallen.
De nadelen ervan zijn daarentegen gering en liggen ver uit elkaar. De 64-MP-camera is echter niet zo indrukwekkend als de specificaties doen vermoeden, omdat het uiteindelijk ontbreekt aan een dynamisch bereik. Daarentegen is het beperken van games tot 30 FPS niet zo'n groot probleem, vooral omdat ze zelden onder dit FPS-teken vallen. Hoewel de smartphone voorgeïnstalleerde reclamebloatware bevat, kunnen de respectievelijke apps worden verwijderd.
De release van deze smartphone kan kopers van de Redmi Note 9S met spijt vullen. Terwijl de Redmi Note 9 Pro fysiek bijna identiek is, biedt het verschillende high-end functies, waaronder een NFC-module voor een vrij kleine premie. Het upgraden van een Redmi Note 8 Pro is echter niet echt de moeite waard, omdat er slechts kleine gen-naar-gen verbeteringen zijn aangebracht.
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro - 23-06-2020 v7
Manuel Masiero