Breve análisis del smartphone Sony Xperia E5
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 | |
UMI Max | |
Sony Xperia E5 | |
LG K8 2017 | |
Coolpad Modena 2 | |
Gigaset GS160 | |
iperf3 receive AX12 | |
Samsung Galaxy S8 Plus | |
UMI Max | |
Sony Xperia E5 | |
LG K8 2017 | |
Coolpad Modena 2 | |
Gigaset GS160 | |
iperf Server (receive) TCP 1 m | |
Vernee Mars | |
Acer Liquid Zest Plus | |
iperf Client (transmit) TCP 1 m | |
Acer Liquid Zest Plus | |
Vernee Mars |
|
iluminación: 96 %
Brillo con batería: 538 cd/m²
Contraste: 1630:1 (Negro: 0.33 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.7 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 4.7 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
Gamma: 2.51
Sony Xperia E5 IPS, 1280x720, 5" | LG K8 2017 IPS, 1280x720, 5" | Gigaset GS160 IPS, 1280x720, 5" | Vernee Mars IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5" | ZTE Blade V7 Lite IPS, 1280x720, 5" | Acer Liquid Zest Plus IPS, 1280x720, 5.5" | UMI Max IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5" | LG G6 IPS LCD, 2880x1440, 5.7" | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Screen | -34% | -37% | -9% | -26% | -30% | -10% | 18% | |
Brightness middle | 538 | 358 -33% | 489 -9% | 345 -36% | 312 -42% | 414 -23% | 522 -3% | 646 20% |
Brightness | 534 | 351 -34% | 479 -10% | 339 -37% | 302 -43% | 420 -21% | 498 -7% | 611 14% |
Brightness Distribution | 96 | 93 -3% | 95 -1% | 85 -11% | 79 -18% | 94 -2% | 86 -10% | 89 -7% |
Black Level * | 0.33 | 0.49 -48% | 0.55 -67% | 0.14 58% | 0.15 55% | 0.33 -0% | 0.23 30% | 0.23 30% |
Contrast | 1630 | 731 -55% | 889 -45% | 2464 51% | 2080 28% | 1255 -23% | 2270 39% | 2809 72% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 5.7 | 7.1 -25% | 8.3 -46% | 7.1 -25% | 8.2 -44% | 8.1 -42% | 6.9 -21% | 4.5 21% |
Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 11 | 14.9 -35% | 14.4 -31% | 13.9 -26% | 16.5 -50% | 13.8 -25% | 12.3 -12% | 8.3 25% |
Greyscale dE 2000 * | 4.7 | 6.5 -38% | 8.7 -85% | 6.7 -43% | 9.2 -96% | 9.6 -104% | 9.2 -96% | 6 -28% |
Gamma | 2.51 88% | 2.12 104% | 2.08 106% | 2.47 89% | 2.29 96% | 2 110% | 2.38 92% | 2.27 97% |
CCT | 7264 89% | 8166 80% | 9034 72% | 7711 84% | 9017 72% | 7754 84% | 8687 75% | 7996 81% |
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 67.74 | |||||||
Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 99.05 |
* ... 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 8715 (mínimo: 5 - máxmo: 343500) Hz. |
Tiempos de respuesta del display
↔ Tiempo de respuesta de Negro a Blanco | ||
---|---|---|
38.8 ms ... subida ↗ y bajada ↘ combinada | ↗ 23.6 ms subida | |
↘ 15.2 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 240 (máximo) ms. » 96 % de todos los dispositivos son mejores. Eso quiere decir que el tiempo de respuesta es peor que la media (20.9 ms) de todos los dispositivos testados. | ||
↔ Tiempo de respuesta 50% Gris a 80% Gris | ||
42.8 ms ... subida ↗ y bajada ↘ combinada | ↗ 19.2 ms subida | |
↘ 23.6 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. » 68 % de todos los dispositivos son mejores. Eso quiere decir que el tiempo de respuesta es peor que la media (32.8 ms) de todos los dispositivos testados. |
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (ordenar por valor) | |
Sony Xperia E5 | |
LG K8 2017 | |
Gigaset GS160 | |
Vernee Mars | |
Coolpad Modena 2 | |
ZTE Blade V7 Lite | |
Acer Liquid Zest Plus | |
UMI Max |
Geekbench 4.0 | |
64 Bit Single-Core Score (ordenar por valor) | |
Gigaset GS160 | |
Vernee Mars | |
Coolpad Modena 2 | |
Acer Liquid Zest Plus | |
UMI Max | |
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (ordenar por valor) | |
Gigaset GS160 | |
Vernee Mars | |
Coolpad Modena 2 | |
Acer Liquid Zest Plus | |
UMI Max |
Geekbench 4.4 | |
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (ordenar por valor) | |
Sony Xperia E5 | |
LG K8 2017 | |
64 Bit Single-Core Score (ordenar por valor) | |
Sony Xperia E5 | |
LG K8 2017 |
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7 | |
T-Rex Onscreen (ordenar por valor) | |
Sony Xperia E5 | |
LG K8 2017 | |
Gigaset GS160 | |
Vernee Mars | |
Coolpad Modena 2 | |
ZTE Blade V7 Lite | |
Acer Liquid Zest Plus | |
UMI Max | |
1920x1080 T-Rex Offscreen (ordenar por valor) | |
Sony Xperia E5 | |
LG K8 2017 | |
Gigaset GS160 | |
Vernee Mars | |
Coolpad Modena 2 | |
ZTE Blade V7 Lite | |
Acer Liquid Zest Plus | |
UMI Max |
GFXBench 3.0 | |
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (ordenar por valor) | |
Sony Xperia E5 | |
LG K8 2017 | |
Gigaset GS160 | |
Vernee Mars | |
Coolpad Modena 2 | |
ZTE Blade V7 Lite | |
Acer Liquid Zest Plus | |
UMI Max | |
1920x1080 1080p Manhattan Offscreen (ordenar por valor) | |
Sony Xperia E5 | |
LG K8 2017 | |
Gigaset GS160 | |
Vernee Mars | |
Coolpad Modena 2 | |
ZTE Blade V7 Lite | |
Acer Liquid Zest Plus | |
UMI Max |
GFXBench 3.1 | |
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (ordenar por valor) | |
Sony Xperia E5 | |
LG K8 2017 | |
Gigaset GS160 | |
Vernee Mars | |
Coolpad Modena 2 | |
ZTE Blade V7 Lite | |
Acer Liquid Zest Plus | |
UMI Max | |
1920x1080 Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (ordenar por valor) | |
Sony Xperia E5 | |
LG K8 2017 | |
Gigaset GS160 | |
Vernee Mars | |
Coolpad Modena 2 | |
ZTE Blade V7 Lite | |
Acer Liquid Zest Plus | |
UMI Max |
PCMark for Android - Work performance score (ordenar por valor) | |
Sony Xperia E5 | |
LG K8 2017 | |
Gigaset GS160 | |
Vernee Mars | |
Coolpad Modena 2 | |
Acer Liquid Zest Plus | |
UMI Max |
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score (ordenar por valor) | |
Sony Xperia E5 | |
LG K8 2017 | |
Gigaset GS160 | |
Vernee Mars | |
Coolpad Modena 2 | |
ZTE Blade V7 Lite | |
Acer Liquid Zest Plus | |
UMI Max |
Octane V2 - Total Score (ordenar por valor) | |
Sony Xperia E5 | |
LG K8 2017 | |
Gigaset GS160 | |
Vernee Mars | |
Coolpad Modena 2 | |
ZTE Blade V7 Lite | |
Acer Liquid Zest Plus | |
UMI Max |
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total (ordenar por valor) | |
Sony Xperia E5 | |
LG K8 2017 | |
Gigaset GS160 | |
Vernee Mars | |
Coolpad Modena 2 | |
ZTE Blade V7 Lite | |
Acer Liquid Zest Plus | |
UMI Max |
* ... más pequeño es mejor
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 44 °C / 111 F, compared to the average of 35.1 °C / 95 F, ranging from 21.9 to 63.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 45.6 °C / 114 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 31.6 °C / 89 F, compared to the device average of 32.8 °C / 91 F.
Sony Xperia E5 audio analysis
(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (76.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5.5% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.5% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (9.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (30.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 76% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 20% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 87% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 10% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Coolpad Modena 2 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 40.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 7.4% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.8% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (2.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (30.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 77% of all tested devices in this class were better, 4% similar, 19% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 87% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 10% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
LG K8 2017 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 38.8% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 13.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (14.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.1% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (34.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 83% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 16% worse
» The best had a delta of 12%, average was 37%, worst was 134%
Compared to all devices tested
» 92% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 6% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Off / Standby | 0.01 / 0.34 Watt |
Ocioso | 1.03 / 2.06 / 2.12 Watt |
Carga |
5.01 / 5.04 Watt |
Clave:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy |
Sony Xperia E5 2300 mAh | LG K8 2017 2500 mAh | Gigaset GS160 2500 mAh | Vernee Mars 3000 mAh | Coolpad Modena 2 2500 mAh | ZTE Blade V7 Lite 2500 mAh | Acer Liquid Zest Plus 5000 mAh | UMI Max 4000 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Power Consumption | 28% | 19% | 2% | 8% | 34% | 12% | 27% | |
Idle Minimum * | 1.03 | 0.65 37% | 0.56 46% | 1.02 1% | 0.64 38% | 0.63 39% | 0.83 19% | 1.02 1% |
Idle Average * | 2.06 | 1.6 22% | 1.7 17% | 1.69 18% | 1.96 5% | 1.37 33% | 2.06 -0% | 1.53 26% |
Idle Maximum * | 2.12 | 1.62 24% | 1.75 17% | 1.82 14% | 1.98 7% | 1.71 19% | 2.08 2% | 1.62 24% |
Load Average * | 5.01 | 2.97 41% | 4.17 17% | 4.39 12% | 4.99 -0% | 2.82 44% | 3.53 30% | 2.91 42% |
Load Maximum * | 5.04 | 4.34 14% | 5.07 -1% | 6.79 -35% | 5.48 -9% | 3.36 33% | 4.49 11% | 2.93 42% |
* ... más pequeño es mejor
Sony Xperia E5 2300 mAh | LG K8 2017 2500 mAh | Gigaset GS160 2500 mAh | Vernee Mars 3000 mAh | Coolpad Modena 2 2500 mAh | ZTE Blade V7 Lite 2500 mAh | Acer Liquid Zest Plus 5000 mAh | UMI Max 4000 mAh | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Duración de Batería | ||||||||
WiFi v1.3 | 422 | 594 41% | 615 46% | 427 1% | 518 23% | 517 23% | 815 93% | 588 39% |
Pro
Contra
En nuestro test, el dispositivo de Sony suma puntos gracias a un panel IPS HD de alto contraste y su facilidad de manejo. El Xperia E5 está bien construido, pero solo ofrece una carcasa de plástico que parece demasiado fino, a pesar de que transmite buenas sensaciones. La competencia, que tiene dispositivos fabricados con cristal (UHANS S1) o metálicos (Vernee Mars), transmite una apariencia de mucha más calidad.
La integración del módulo de bajo rendimiento Mediathek quad-core SoC con 1.5 GB RAM proporciona un funcionamiento sorprendentemente fluido en el uso cotidiano y, gracias al rápido almacenamiento eMMC de 16 GB, las aplicaciones se abren en un tiempo razonable. Además, el módulo GPS del Xperia E5 es muy preciso.
Entre lo negativo, hay que mencionar que el consumo de energía es relativamente alto y el dispositivo se calienta demasiado. La duración de la batería del smartphone de Sony está por debajo de la media. Además, la calidad de la cámara y del altavoz son mediocres.
El Xperia E5 es un buen dispositivo de bajo precio para uso diario. Sin embargo se echa de menos el atractivo diseño en cristal de otros teléfonos Xperia de Sony de gamas más altas.
Ésta es una versión acortada del análisis original. Puedes leer el análisis completo en inglés aquí.
Sony Xperia E5
- 06/06/2017 v6 (old)
Marcus Herbrich