Breve análisis del Smartphone Honor 8 Pro
Top 10 Análisis
» Top 10 Portátiles Multimedia
» Top 10 Portátiles de Juego
» Top 10 Portátiles de Juego ligeros
» Top 10 Portátiles Asequibles de Oficina/Empresa
» Top 10 Portátiles de Juego Ligeros
» Top 10 Portátiles de Oficina/Empresa Premium
» Top 10 Estaciones de Trabajo
» Top 10 Subportátiles
» Top 10 Ultrabooks
» Top 10 Convertibles
» Top 10 Tablets
» Top 10 Tablets Windows
» Top 10 Tablets de menos de 250 Euros
» Top 10 Phablets (>5.5")
» Top 10 Smartphones
» Top 10 Smartphones (≤5")
» Top 10 Smartphones de menos de 300 Euros
» Top 10 Smartphones de menos de 120 Euros
» Top 10 Portátiles de menos de 1000 Euros
» Top 10 Portátiles de menos de 500 Euros
» Top 10 Portátiles de menos de 300 Euros
» Los Mejores Displays de Portátiles Analizados por Notebookcheck
Networking | |
iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
Huawei P10 | |
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
OnePlus 3T | |
HTC U Play | |
Honor 8 Pro | |
iperf3 receive AX12 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
Huawei P10 | |
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
OnePlus 3T | |
HTC U Play | |
Honor 8 Pro |
|
iluminación: 91 %
Brillo con batería: 541 cd/m²
Contraste: 1803:1 (Negro: 0.3 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3.2 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92
ΔE Greyscale 4 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
Gamma: 2.27
Honor 8 Pro IPS, 2560x1440, 5.7" | Huawei P10 LTPS, 1920x1080, 5.1" | Huawei P9 Plus AMOLED, 1920x1080, 5.5" | HTC U Play Super LCD, 1920x1080, 5.2" | HTC 10 Super LCD 5, 2560x1440, 5.2" | Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge Super AMOLED, 2560x1440, 5.5" | Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus Super AMOLED, 2960x1440, 6.2" | OnePlus 3T Optic-AMOLED, 1920x1080, 5.5" | Lenovo Moto Z AMOLED, 2560x1440, 5.5" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | -19% | -34% | -20% | -6% | 30% | 29% | -59% | 13% | |
Brightness middle | 541 | 547 1% | 361 -33% | 424 -22% | 445 -18% | 554 2% | 560 4% | 421 -22% | 485 -10% |
Brightness | 514 | 556 8% | 366 -29% | 432 -16% | 434 -16% | 552 7% | 562 9% | 430 -16% | 490 -5% |
Brightness Distribution | 91 | 86 -5% | 87 -4% | 90 -1% | 93 2% | 96 5% | 93 2% | 84 -8% | 92 1% |
Black Level * | 0.3 | 0.43 -43% | 0.25 17% | 0.36 -20% | |||||
Contrast | 1803 | 1272 -29% | 1696 -6% | 1236 -31% | |||||
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 3.2 | 4.8 -50% | 5.1 -59% | 5.7 -78% | 2.8 12% | 1.59 50% | 1.7 47% | 7.1 -122% | 2.1 34% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 7.2 | 8.8 -22% | 10 -39% | 10.8 -50% | 5.8 19% | 2.56 64% | 3.4 53% | 15.3 -113% | 5.5 24% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 4 | 4.5 -13% | 5.5 -38% | 4.1 -3% | 3.7 7% | 2.01 50% | 1.6 60% | 6.8 -70% | 2.6 35% |
Gamma | 2.27 97% | 2.39 92% | 2.24 98% | 2.32 95% | 2.31 95% | 2.01 109% | 2.13 103% | 2.23 99% | 2.23 99% |
CCT | 7120 91% | 7194 90% | 7388 88% | 7359 88% | 7164 91% | 6321 103% | 6435 101% | 7866 83% | 6843 95% |
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 82.12 | 81.57 | 88.14 | ||||||
Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 99.98 | 99.87 | 100 |
* ... más pequeño es mejor
Parpadeo de Pantalla / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
Parpadeo de Pantalla / PWM no detectado | |||
Comparación: 53 % de todos los dispositivos testados no usaron PWM para atenuar el display. Si se usó, medimos una media de 8743 (mínimo: 5 - máxmo: 343500) Hz. |
Tiempos de respuesta del display
↔ Tiempo de respuesta de Negro a Blanco | ||
---|---|---|
24 ms ... subida ↗ y bajada ↘ combinada | ↗ 10 ms subida | |
↘ 14 ms bajada | ||
La pantalla mostró buenos tiempos de respuesta en nuestros tests pero podría ser demasiado lenta para los jugones competitivos. En comparación, todos los dispositivos de prueba van de ##min### (mínimo) a 240 (máximo) ms. » 50 % de todos los dispositivos son mejores. Eso quiere decir que el tiempo de respuesta es peor que la media (21 ms) de todos los dispositivos testados. | ||
↔ Tiempo de respuesta 50% Gris a 80% Gris | ||
52.8 ms ... subida ↗ y bajada ↘ combinada | ↗ 30.8 ms subida | |
↘ 22 ms bajada | ||
La pantalla mostró tiempos de respuesta lentos en nuestros tests y podría ser demasiado lenta para los jugones. En comparación, todos los dispositivos de prueba van de ##min### (mínimo) a 636 (máximo) ms. » 88 % de todos los dispositivos son mejores. Eso quiere decir que el tiempo de respuesta es peor que la media (32.9 ms) de todos los dispositivos testados. |
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (ordenar por valor) | |
Honor 8 Pro | |
Huawei P10 | |
Huawei P9 Plus | |
HTC U Play | |
HTC 10 | |
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
OnePlus 3T | |
Lenovo Moto Z |
Geekbench 4.0 | |
64 Bit Single-Core Score (ordenar por valor) | |
Huawei P10 | |
HTC U Play | |
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
OnePlus 3T | |
Lenovo Moto Z | |
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (ordenar por valor) | |
Huawei P10 | |
HTC U Play | |
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
OnePlus 3T | |
Lenovo Moto Z |
Geekbench 4.4 | |
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (ordenar por valor) | |
Honor 8 Pro | |
Huawei P10 | |
HTC 10 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
64 Bit Single-Core Score (ordenar por valor) | |
Honor 8 Pro | |
Huawei P10 | |
HTC 10 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus |
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | |
T-Rex Onscreen (ordenar por valor) | |
Honor 8 Pro | |
Huawei P10 | |
Huawei P9 Plus | |
HTC U Play | |
HTC 10 | |
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
OnePlus 3T | |
Lenovo Moto Z | |
1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (ordenar por valor) | |
Honor 8 Pro | |
Huawei P10 | |
Huawei P9 Plus | |
HTC U Play | |
HTC 10 | |
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
OnePlus 3T | |
Lenovo Moto Z |
GFXBench 3.0 | |
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (ordenar por valor) | |
Honor 8 Pro | |
Huawei P10 | |
Huawei P9 Plus | |
HTC U Play | |
HTC 10 | |
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
OnePlus 3T | |
Lenovo Moto Z | |
1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (ordenar por valor) | |
Honor 8 Pro | |
Huawei P10 | |
Huawei P9 Plus | |
HTC U Play | |
HTC 10 | |
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
OnePlus 3T | |
Lenovo Moto Z |
GFXBench 3.1 | |
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (ordenar por valor) | |
Honor 8 Pro | |
Huawei P10 | |
Huawei P9 Plus | |
HTC U Play | |
HTC 10 | |
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
OnePlus 3T | |
Lenovo Moto Z | |
1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (ordenar por valor) | |
Honor 8 Pro | |
Huawei P10 | |
Huawei P9 Plus | |
HTC U Play | |
HTC 10 | |
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
OnePlus 3T | |
Lenovo Moto Z |
PCMark for Android - Work performance score (ordenar por valor) | |
Honor 8 Pro | |
Huawei P10 | |
Huawei P9 Plus | |
HTC U Play | |
HTC 10 | |
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
OnePlus 3T | |
Lenovo Moto Z |
Octane V2 - Total Score | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
Huawei P9 Plus | |
Huawei P10 | |
Honor 8 Pro | |
OnePlus 3T | |
HTC 10 | |
Lenovo Moto Z | |
HTC U Play |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total | |
HTC U Play | |
Honor 8 Pro | |
Lenovo Moto Z | |
HTC 10 | |
Huawei P10 | |
Huawei P9 Plus | |
OnePlus 3T | |
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score | |
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
Huawei P9 Plus | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
Honor 8 Pro | |
Huawei P10 | |
OnePlus 3T | |
HTC 10 | |
Lenovo Moto Z | |
HTC U Play |
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall | |
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
Honor 8 Pro | |
Huawei P10 | |
OnePlus 3T | |
Huawei P9 Plus | |
Lenovo Moto Z | |
HTC 10 |
* ... más pequeño es mejor
Honor 8 Pro Mali-G71 MP8, Kirin 960, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Huawei P10 Mali-G71 MP8, Kirin 960, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | Huawei P9 Plus Mali-T880 MP4, Kirin 955, 64 GB eMMC Flash | HTC U Play Mali-T860 MP2, Helio P10 MT6755, 32 GB eMMC Flash | HTC 10 Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash | Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge Mali-T880 MP12, Exynos 8890, 32 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus Mali-G71 MP20, Exynos 8895, 64 GB UFS 2.1 Flash | OnePlus 3T Adreno 530, SD 821, 64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash | Lenovo Moto Z Adreno 530, 820 MSM8996, 32 GB eMMC Flash | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AndroBench 3-5 | 0% | -39% | -51% | -19% | -16% | 1% | -33% | -7% | |
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard | 32.16 | 32.19 0% | 24.95 -22% | 23.6 -27% | 65.4 103% | 50.4 57% | 57.2 78% | 45.64 42% | |
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard | 54.2 | 54.2 0% | 62.5 15% | 36.8 -32% | 83.3 54% | 76.4 41% | 71.1 31% | 78.5 45% | |
Random Write 4KB | 151.6 | 152.3 0% | 51.2 -66% | 52.7 -65% | 15.89 -90% | 15.79 -90% | 15.27 -90% | 74.4 -51% | 74.9 -51% |
Random Read 4KB | 166.4 | 168.4 1% | 39.33 -76% | 32 -81% | 29.92 -82% | 86.7 -48% | 127.2 -24% | 123.6 -26% | 117.2 -30% |
Sequential Write 256KB | 187.1 | 189.8 1% | 140.4 -25% | 135.5 -28% | 115.6 -38% | 145.1 -22% | 194.2 4% | 165.3 -12% | 168.3 -10% |
Sequential Read 256KB | 738 | 738 0% | 284.3 -61% | 197.3 -73% | 275.1 -63% | 487.3 -34% | 788 7% | 436.4 -41% | 439.7 -40% |
Dead Trigger 2 | |||
Configuraciones | Valor | ||
high | 30 fps |
Asphalt 8: Airborne | |||
Configuraciones | Valor | ||
high | 29 fps | ||
very low | 29 fps |
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 44.8 °C / 113 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 63.2 °C for the class Smartphone.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 41.2 °C / 106 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 33.3 °C / 92 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Honor 8 Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.4% lower than median
(-) | bass is not linear (15.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.4% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 49% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 42% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 67% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 26% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Huawei P10 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (82.7 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 20.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.2% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 49% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 42% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 67% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 26% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
OnePlus 3T audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.3 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 24.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.6% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 7.1% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (2.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 34% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 58% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 53% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 39% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Off / Standby | 0.02 / 0.24 Watt |
Ocioso | 0.98 / 2.27 / 2.36 Watt |
Carga |
6.58 / 10.12 Watt |
Clave:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Honor 8 Pro 4000 mAh | Huawei P10 3200 mAh | Huawei P9 Plus 3400 mAh | HTC U Play 2500 mAh | HTC 10 3000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge 3600 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus 3500 mAh | OnePlus 3T 3400 mAh | Lenovo Moto Z 2600 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | 8% | 35% | 23% | 15% | 33% | 42% | 15% | 40% | |
Idle Minimum * | 0.98 | 0.83 15% | 0.87 11% | 0.92 6% | 0.68 31% | 0.63 36% | 0.68 31% | 0.61 38% | 0.66 33% |
Idle Average * | 2.27 | 2.1 7% | 1.2 47% | 1.84 19% | 1.49 34% | 1.1 52% | 1.13 50% | 1.77 22% | 1.01 56% |
Idle Maximum * | 2.36 | 2.18 8% | 1.27 46% | 2 15% | 1.91 19% | 1.56 34% | 1.16 51% | 1.81 23% | 1.09 54% |
Load Average * | 6.58 | 6.57 -0% | 4.69 29% | 4.3 35% | 7.4 -12% | 5.95 10% | 4.69 29% | 6.67 -1% | 3.97 40% |
Load Maximum * | 10.12 | 9.32 8% | 5.63 44% | 6.2 39% | 9.71 4% | 6.7 34% | 5.24 48% | 10.98 -8% | 8.34 18% |
* ... más pequeño es mejor
Honor 8 Pro 4000 mAh | Huawei Mate 9 4000 mAh | Huawei P10 3200 mAh | Huawei P9 Plus 3400 mAh | HTC U Play 2500 mAh | HTC 10 3000 mAh | Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus 3500 mAh | OnePlus 3T 3400 mAh | Lenovo Moto Z 2600 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Duración de Batería | 26% | 16% | 14% | -6% | -7% | 26% | 16% | 14% | |
Reader / Idle | 1378 | 1538 12% | 1540 12% | 1446 5% | 1302 -6% | 1273 -8% | 1565 14% | 1423 3% | 1371 -1% |
H.264 | 675 | 947 40% | 582 -14% | 776 15% | 514 -24% | 648 -4% | 742 10% | 810 20% | 724 7% |
WiFi v1.3 | 573 | 758 32% | 966 69% | 530 -8% | 473 -17% | 413 -28% | 736 28% | 494 -14% | 407 -29% |
Load | 181 | 219 21% | 176 -3% | 263 45% | 223 23% | 203 12% | 275 52% | 282 56% | 320 77% |
Pro
Contra
El Honor 8 Pro es un smartphone gama alta ópticamente muy exitoso y bien construido con un rendimiento de sistema excelente. Comparado con los dispositivos actuales de gama alta y algunos de la cosecha pasada, tenemos que conformarnos con menos en muchos sitios, a pesar de su amplia RAM de 6 GB.
En el Honor 8 Pro, no vemos (aún) la excelente relación precio-rendimiento que ha hecho famosa a los dispositivos Honor. Los smartphones gama alta del año pasado (tales como el Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge) a veces ofrecen un mejor paquete en general por menos dinero, habida cuenta que esos dispositivos han pasado ya su mayor bajada de precio.
Características tales como Bluetooth 4.2 en vez de 5.0, la gráfica relativamente "débil", una cámara frontal sin auto-focus, y el estándar USB-2.0 diferencian al Honor 8 Pro de los actuales smartphones insignia de otros fabricantes. Además, ni se puede cargar la batería inalámbricamente, ni el dispositivo está certificado según el estándar IP de protección frente al polvo y al agua. Los bordes de la carcasa son ligeramente largos y la r4elación display-frontal es relativamente ineficiente, al menos para un dispositivo de 2017.
Con todo, el Honor 8 Pro es un smartphone muy exitoso y una alternativa recomendable a los dispositivos Huawei P10. Pero a nuestro parecer no es un ataque al Olimpo smartphone de 2017.
A pesar de ello, las políticas de Huawei de eliminar componentes hardware dejan un mal sabor de boca – si todos los compradores del Honor-8-Pro disfrutarán del moderno almacenamiento UFS-2.1 es al menos cuestionable.
Ésta es una versión acortada del análisis original. Puedes leer el análisis completo en inglés aquí.
Honor 8 Pro
- 05/04/2017 v6 (old)
Marcus Herbrich