Display Review – DXOMARK https://www.dxomark.com The leading source of independent audio, display, battery and image quality measurements and ratings for smartphone, camera, lens and wireless speaker since 2008. Wed, 22 Mar 2023 17:14:02 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.6.8 https://www.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/logo-o-transparent-150x150.png Display Review – DXOMARK https://www.dxomark.com 32 32 Samsung Galaxy A54 5G Display test https://www.dxomark.com/samsung-galaxy-a54-display-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/samsung-galaxy-a54-display-test/#respond Mon, 20 Mar 2023 15:07:45 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=142223&preview=true&preview_id=142223 We put the Samsung Galaxy A54 5G through our rigorous DXOMARK Display test suite to measure its performance across six criteria. In this test results, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases. Overview Key display specifications: 6.4 inches AMOLED, 109.8 cm2 (~85.0% screen-to-body ratio) Dimensions: [...]

The post Samsung Galaxy A54 5G Display test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> We put the Samsung Galaxy A54 5G through our rigorous DXOMARK Display test suite to measure its performance across six criteria. In this test results, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview

Key display specifications:

  • 6.4 inches AMOLED, 109.8 cm2 (~85.0% screen-to-body ratio)
  • Dimensions: 158.2 mm x 76.7 mm x 8.2 mm
  • Resolution: 1080 x 2340 (FHD+) pixels, (~403 ppi density)
  • Aspect ratio: 19.5:9
  • Refresh rate: 120 Hz

Scoring

Sub-scores and attributes included in the calculations of the global score.

Samsung Galaxy A54 Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
120
display
Readability
117

160

Color
137

163

Video
127

162

Motion
134

155

Touch
144

165

Artifacts
72

158

DISPLAY
Position in Global Ranking
83rd
1. Honor Magic5 Pro
151
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
149
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
149
4. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
148
4. Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
148
6. Google Pixel 7 Pro
146
6. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
146
8. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
145
9. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
144
10. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
141
11. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
140
11. Google Pixel 7
140
11. Honor Magic4 Ultimate
140
11. Vivo X Fold
140
15. Apple iPhone 14
139
15. Oppo Find X5 Pro
139
17. Oppo Find X5
138
18. Apple iPhone 13
136
18. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
136
18. Xiaomi 13 Pro
136
21. Huawei P50 Pro
135
21. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
135
21. Xiaomi 13
135
24. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
134
24. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
134
24. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
134
27. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
133
27. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Snapdragon)
133
27. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
133
27. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
133
31. Vivo X70 Pro+
132
32. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
131
32. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
131
32. Sony Xperia 5 IV
131
32. Xiaomi 12T
131
36. Apple iPhone 13 mini
130
36. Google Pixel 6 Pro
130
36. Honor Magic4 Pro
130
36. Oppo Find N2 Flip
130
36. Realme GT 2 Pro
130
36. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
130
42. OnePlus 10 Pro
129
42. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
129
42. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
129
42. TCL 20 Pro 5G
129
42. Vivo X60 Pro+
129
42. Xiaomi 11T
129
48. Asus ROG Phone 6
128
48. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
128
48. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
128
51. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
127
51. OnePlus 9 Pro
127
51. OnePlus 8T
127
51. Xiaomi 12T Pro
127
55. Oppo Find X3 Pro
126
55. Sony Xperia 1 IV
126
57. Google Pixel 6a
125
57. Google Pixel 6
125
57. LG Wing
125
57. OnePlus 9
125
57. OnePlus 8 Pro
125
57. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
125
57. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
125
57. Vivo iQOO 9 Pro
125
57. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
125
57. Xiaomi 11T Pro
125
67. Honor 70
124
67. Oppo Reno8 5G
124
67. Oppo Find N
124
67. Sony Xperia 5 III
124
67. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
124
67. Xiaomi Mi 11
124
73. Apple iPhone 12 Pro
123
73. Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
123
73. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
123
73. Vivo X51 5G
123
77. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
122
77. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
122
77. Oppo Reno8 Pro 5G
122
77. Oppo Find X3 Neo
122
77. Sony Xperia 1 III
122
77. Xiaomi 12 Pro
122
83. Apple iPhone 12
120
83. Huawei P40 Pro
120
83. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
120
86. Realme GT 5G
118
86. Xiaomi 12
118
88. Oppo Reno5 Pro+ 5G
117
88. Vivo iQOO 7 Legend
117
88. Xiaomi Mi 11i
117
91. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
116
91. Asus ROG Phone 5
116
93. Oppo Reno5 Pro 5G
114
94. Asus Zenfone 8
113
95. Oppo Reno6 5G
112
96. Motorola Edge 20 Pro
111
96. Oppo Find X3 Lite
111
96. Realme GT Neo 2 5G
111
96. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
111
100. Oppo Find X5 Lite
110
100. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
110
102. Lenovo Legion Y90
109
102. OnePlus Nord 2 5G
109
104. Sony Xperia 5 II
108
105. POCO F4 GT
107
105. Xiaomi Redmi K50 Gaming
107
107. Nubia RedMagic 6 Pro
105
108. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
104
108. ZTE Axon 30 Ultra
104
110. Oppo Find X2 Pro
103
111. Google Pixel 5
101
112. Google Pixel 4 XL
100
112. Sony Xperia 10 IV
100
114. Microsoft Surface Duo
99
115. Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
98
116. Nubia RedMagic 7 Pro
97
117. Black Shark 4S Pro
95
117. Black Shark 4 Pro
95
117. Xiaomi Mi 10T Pro 5G
95
120. Black Shark 5 Pro
94
120. Vivo X80 Lite 5G
94
122. Asus ROG Phone 3
92
123. Fairphone 4
87
124. Crosscall Action-X5
77
125. Samsung Galaxy A22 5G
74
126. Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
69
127. Nokia 8.3 5G
65
128. Lenovo Legion Phone 2 Pro
60
129. Samsung Galaxy A12
53
130. Realme C21
52
DISPLAY
Position in High-End Ranking
11th
1. Google Pixel 7
140
2. Xiaomi 12T
131
3. TCL 20 Pro 5G
129
3. Xiaomi 11T
129
5. OnePlus 8T
127
6. Google Pixel 6a
125
6. Google Pixel 6
125
8. Honor 70
124
8. Oppo Reno8 5G
124
10. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
122
11. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
120
12. Realme GT 5G
118
13. Vivo iQOO 7 Legend
117
14. Oppo Reno5 Pro 5G
114
15. Oppo Reno6 5G
112
16. Oppo Find X3 Lite
111
16. Realme GT Neo 2 5G
111
16. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
111
19. Oppo Find X5 Lite
110
19. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
110
21. POCO F4 GT
107
21. Xiaomi Redmi K50 Gaming
107
23. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
104
24. Sony Xperia 10 IV
100
25. Xiaomi Mi 10T Pro 5G
95
26. Vivo X80 Lite 5G
94
27. Fairphone 4
87
28. Crosscall Action-X5
77

Pros

  • Accurate and reactive touch when playing videos games
  • When viewing HDR10 videos, midtones are well rendered, allowing to see more details
  • Well-managed frame drops when playing videos games

Cons

  • High Brightness Mode affects the picture rendering, with skin tones appearing flat and the presence of a strong yellow/green cast on the screen
  • When viewing at an angle, the screen becomes iridescent, showing pink to green casts
  • Aliasing when playing videos games

The Samsung Galaxy A54 5G’s display performance was very average. The device’s highlight was watching HDR10 videos on its screen because of the good color rendering, particularly the midtones, which emphasized details. However, it was not possible to view Ultra-High Definition (UHD) 60 fps content on this device.

The device’s High Brightness Mode performance indicated that that feature could use some tuning. When the device was used outdoors, the screen image would be affected by color casts and inconsistencies in image rendering.

Test summary

About DXOMARK Display tests: For scoring and analysis in our smartphone and other display reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective and perceptual tests under controlled lab and real-life conditions. Note that we evaluate display attributes using only the device’s built-in display hardware and its still image (gallery) and video apps at their default settings. (For in-depth information about how we evaluate smartphone and other displays, check out our articles, “How DXOMARK tests display quality” and “A closer look at DXOMARK Display testing.”

The following section gathers key elements of our exhaustive tests and analyses performed in DXOMARK laboratories. Detailed performance evaluations under the form of reports are available upon request. Do not hesitate to contact us.

Readability

117

Samsung Galaxy A54 5G

160

Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
i
How Display Readability score is composed

Readability evaluates how easily and comfortably users can read still content (photos & web) on the display under different real-life conditions. DXOMARK uses its Display Bench to recreate ambient light conditions ranging from total darkness to bright sunlight. In addition to laboratory tests, perceptual analysis is also made in real-life environments.

Learn more about how we test display readability
Brightness under various lighting conditions
Contrast under various lighting conditions


Readability in an indoor (1000 lux) environment
From left: Samsung Galaxy A54 5G, Samsung A53 5G, Google Pixel 6a, Xiaomi 12T
(Photos for illustration only)


Readability in a sunlight (>90 000 lux) environment
From left: Samsung Galaxy A54 5G, Samsung A53 5G, Google Pixel 6a, Xiaomi 12T
(Photos for illustration only)

Luminance uniformity measurement
This graph shows the uniformity of the display with a 20% gray pattern. The more visible the green color, the more uniform the display.

Color

137

Samsung Galaxy A54 5G

163

Huawei Mate 50 Pro
i
How Display Color score is composed

The color attribute evaluates the capacity of the device to accurately reproduce colors. The measurements taken are for fidelity, white point color, and gamut coverage. We perform color evaluations for different lighting conditions to see how well the device can manage color in the surrounding environment. Colors are measured using a spectrophotometer in a controlled lighting environment. Perceptual analysis of color rendering is against the reference pattern displayed on a calibrated professional monitor.

Learn more about how we test display color
White point under D65 illuminant at 1000 lux

Color fidelity measurements
Samsung Galaxy A54 5G, color fidelity at 1000 lux in the sRGB color space
Samsung Galaxy A54 5G, color fidelity at 1000 lux in the Display-P3 color space
Each arrow represents the color difference between a target color pattern (base of the arrow) and its actual measurement (tip of the arrow). The longer the arrow, the more visible the color difference is. If the arrow stays within the circle, the color difference will be visible only to trained eyes.
Color behavior on angle
This graph shows the color shift when the screen is at an angle. Each dot represents a measurement at a particular angle. Dots inside the inner circle exhibit no color shift in angle; those between the inner and outer circle have shifts that only trained experts will see; but those falling outside the outer circle are noticeable.

Video

127

Samsung Galaxy A54 5G

162

Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
i
How Display Video score is composed

Our video attribute evaluates the Standard Dynamic Range (SDR) and High Dynamic Range (HDR10) video handling of each device in indoor and low-light conditions. We measure tone mapping, color gamut, brightness and contrast of the display. We perform perceptual analysis against our professional reference monitor (Sony BVM-HX310) to ensure that the rendering respects the artistic intent.

Learn more about how we test display video
Video brightness at 10% APL in the dark ( < 5 lux)


Video rendering in a low-light (0 lux) environment
Clockwise from top left: Samsung Galaxy A54 5G, Google Pixel 6a, Xiaomi 12T
(Photos for illustration only)

Gamut coverage for video content
HDR10 Gamut coverage
SDR Gamut coverage
The primary colors are measured both in HDR10 and SDR. The extracted color gamut shows the extent of the color area that the device can render. To respect the artistic intent, the measured gamut should match the master color space of each video.

Motion

134

Samsung Galaxy A54 5G

155

Huawei P40 Pro
i
How Display Motion score is composed

The motion attribute evaluates the handling of dynamic contents. Frame drops, motion blur, and playback artifacts are scrutinized using games and videos.

Learn more about how we test display motion


Video frame drops
30 fps content
60 fps content
These long exposure photos present the number of frame irregularities in a 30-second video. A good performance shows a regular pattern (either a flat gray image or a pull-down pattern).

Touch

144

Samsung Galaxy A54 5G

165

OnePlus 9
i
How Display Touch score is composed

To evaluate touch, DXOMARK uses a touch robot and a high-speed camera to play and record a set of scenarios for smoothness, accuracy and response-time evaluation.

Learn more about how we test display touch
Average Touch Response Time Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
59 ms
Fast
Good
Bad
Slow
This response time test evaluates precisely the time elapsed between a single touch of the robot on the screen and the displayed action. This test is applied to activities that require a high reactivity, such as gaming.

Artifacts

72

Samsung Galaxy A54 5G

158

Vivo X Fold

i
How Display Artifacts score is composed

Evaluating artifacts means checking for the performance, image rendering and motion flaws that can affect the end-user experience. DXOMARK measures precisely the device’s reflectance and the presence of flicker, and assesses the impact of residual aliasing when playing video games, among other characteristics.

Learn more about how we test display motion
Average Reflectance (SCI) Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
5.2 %
Low
Good
Bad
High
Reflectance measurement (SCI)
Measurements above show the reflection of the device within the visible spectrum range (400 nm to 700 nm). It includes both diffuse and specular reflection.
Flicker Frequency Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
240 Hz
Bad
Good
Bad
Great
Flicker comparison
This graph represents the frequencies of lighting variation; the highest peak gives the main flicker frequency.
Aliasing (closeup)
Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
(Photos for illustration only)

Samsung Galaxy A54 5G – Crop1
Samsung Galaxy A54 5G – Crop 2
Samsung Galaxy A54 5G – Crop3

The post Samsung Galaxy A54 5G Display test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> https://www.dxomark.com/samsung-galaxy-a54-display-test/feed/ 0 Samsung Galaxy A54 DISPLAY DISPLAY Samsung_Galaxy_A54_5G_readability_indoor Samsung_Galaxy_A54_5G_readability_sunlight Luminance_Map_Gray_20_Portrait_Normalized_Samsung Galaxy A54 5G Samsung_Galaxy_A54_5G_White_Point_CCT_vs_Ambient Samsung_Galaxy_A54_5G_Color_Fidelity_Still_sRGB_1000lux_Zoom Samsung_Galaxy_A54_5G_Color_Fidelity_Still_P3_1000lux_Zoom Samsung_Galaxy_A54_5G_Scatter_Cono_White_P3_Zoom Samsung_Galaxy_A54_5G_video_lowlight_1 Samsung_Galaxy_A54_5G_Gamut_Video_HDR10 Samsung_Galaxy_A54_5G_Gamut_Video_SDR Samsung_Galaxy_A54_5G_motion_framedrops_fps_1 Samsung_Galaxy_A54_5G_motion_framedrops_fps_2 Samsung_Galaxy_A54_5G_artifacts_aliasing_full Samsung_Galaxy_A54_5G_artifacts_aliasing_crops_dut_1 Samsung_Galaxy_A54_5G_artifacts_aliasing_crops_dut_3 Oppo Find N2 Flip Display test https://www.dxomark.com/oppo-find-n2-flip-display-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/oppo-find-n2-flip-display-test/#respond Mon, 20 Mar 2023 12:11:22 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=140072&preview=true&preview_id=140072 We put the Oppo Find N2 Flip through our rigorous DXOMARK Display test suite to measure its performance across six criteria. In this test results, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases. Overview Key display specifications: 6.8 inches AMOLED, 109.8 cm2 (~87.4% screen-to-body ratio) Dimensions: [...]

The post Oppo Find N2 Flip Display test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> We put the Oppo Find N2 Flip through our rigorous DXOMARK Display test suite to measure its performance across six criteria. In this test results, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview

Key display specifications:

  • 6.8 inches AMOLED, 109.8 cm2 (~87.4% screen-to-body ratio)
  • Dimensions: 85.5 x 75.2 x 16.02 mm (3.37 x 2.96 x 0.63 inches)
  • Resolution: 1080 x 2520 pixels, (~403 ppi density)
  • Aspect ratio: None
  • Refresh rate: 120 Hz

Scoring

Sub-scores and attributes included in the calculations of the global score.

Oppo Find N2 Flip Oppo Find N2 Flip
130
display
Readability
126

160

Color
152

163

Video
127

162

Motion
140

155

Touch
122

165

Artifacts
114

158

DISPLAY
Position in Global Ranking
36th
1. Honor Magic5 Pro
151
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
149
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
149
4. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
148
4. Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
148
6. Google Pixel 7 Pro
146
6. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
146
8. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
145
9. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
144
10. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
141
11. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
140
11. Google Pixel 7
140
11. Honor Magic4 Ultimate
140
11. Vivo X Fold
140
15. Apple iPhone 14
139
15. Oppo Find X5 Pro
139
17. Oppo Find X5
138
18. Apple iPhone 13
136
18. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
136
18. Xiaomi 13 Pro
136
21. Huawei P50 Pro
135
21. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
135
21. Xiaomi 13
135
24. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
134
24. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
134
24. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
134
27. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
133
27. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Snapdragon)
133
27. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
133
27. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
133
31. Vivo X70 Pro+
132
32. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
131
32. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
131
32. Sony Xperia 5 IV
131
32. Xiaomi 12T
131
36. Apple iPhone 13 mini
130
36. Google Pixel 6 Pro
130
36. Honor Magic4 Pro
130
36. Oppo Find N2 Flip
130
36. Realme GT 2 Pro
130
36. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
130
42. OnePlus 10 Pro
129
42. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
129
42. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
129
42. TCL 20 Pro 5G
129
42. Vivo X60 Pro+
129
42. Xiaomi 11T
129
48. Asus ROG Phone 6
128
48. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
128
48. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
128
51. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
127
51. OnePlus 9 Pro
127
51. OnePlus 8T
127
51. Xiaomi 12T Pro
127
55. Oppo Find X3 Pro
126
55. Sony Xperia 1 IV
126
57. Google Pixel 6a
125
57. Google Pixel 6
125
57. LG Wing
125
57. OnePlus 9
125
57. OnePlus 8 Pro
125
57. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
125
57. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
125
57. Vivo iQOO 9 Pro
125
57. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
125
57. Xiaomi 11T Pro
125
67. Honor 70
124
67. Oppo Reno8 5G
124
67. Oppo Find N
124
67. Sony Xperia 5 III
124
67. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
124
67. Xiaomi Mi 11
124
73. Apple iPhone 12 Pro
123
73. Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
123
73. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
123
73. Vivo X51 5G
123
77. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
122
77. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
122
77. Oppo Reno8 Pro 5G
122
77. Oppo Find X3 Neo
122
77. Sony Xperia 1 III
122
77. Xiaomi 12 Pro
122
83. Apple iPhone 12
120
83. Huawei P40 Pro
120
83. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
120
86. Realme GT 5G
118
86. Xiaomi 12
118
88. Oppo Reno5 Pro+ 5G
117
88. Vivo iQOO 7 Legend
117
88. Xiaomi Mi 11i
117
91. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
116
91. Asus ROG Phone 5
116
93. Oppo Reno5 Pro 5G
114
94. Asus Zenfone 8
113
95. Oppo Reno6 5G
112
96. Motorola Edge 20 Pro
111
96. Oppo Find X3 Lite
111
96. Realme GT Neo 2 5G
111
96. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
111
100. Oppo Find X5 Lite
110
100. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
110
102. Lenovo Legion Y90
109
102. OnePlus Nord 2 5G
109
104. Sony Xperia 5 II
108
105. POCO F4 GT
107
105. Xiaomi Redmi K50 Gaming
107
107. Nubia RedMagic 6 Pro
105
108. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
104
108. ZTE Axon 30 Ultra
104
110. Oppo Find X2 Pro
103
111. Google Pixel 5
101
112. Google Pixel 4 XL
100
112. Sony Xperia 10 IV
100
114. Microsoft Surface Duo
99
115. Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
98
116. Nubia RedMagic 7 Pro
97
117. Black Shark 4S Pro
95
117. Black Shark 4 Pro
95
117. Xiaomi Mi 10T Pro 5G
95
120. Black Shark 5 Pro
94
120. Vivo X80 Lite 5G
94
122. Asus ROG Phone 3
92
123. Fairphone 4
87
124. Crosscall Action-X5
77
125. Samsung Galaxy A22 5G
74
126. Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
69
127. Nokia 8.3 5G
65
128. Lenovo Legion Phone 2 Pro
60
129. Samsung Galaxy A12
53
130. Realme C21
52
DISPLAY
Position in Ultra-Premium Ranking
28th
1. Honor Magic5 Pro
151
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
149
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
149
4. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
148
5. Google Pixel 7 Pro
146
5. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
146
7. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
145
8. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
144
9. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
141
10. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
140
10. Honor Magic4 Ultimate
140
10. Vivo X Fold
140
13. Oppo Find X5 Pro
139
14. Oppo Find X5
138
15. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
136
15. Xiaomi 13 Pro
136
17. Huawei P50 Pro
135
17. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
135
19. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
134
19. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
134
19. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
134
22. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
133
22. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
133
24. Vivo X70 Pro+
132
25. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
131
25. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
131
25. Sony Xperia 5 IV
131
28. Google Pixel 6 Pro
130
28. Honor Magic4 Pro
130
28. Oppo Find N2 Flip
130
31. OnePlus 10 Pro
129
31. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
129
31. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
129
31. Vivo X60 Pro+
129
35. Asus ROG Phone 6
128
35. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
128
35. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
128
38. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
127
38. OnePlus 9 Pro
127
40. Oppo Find X3 Pro
126
40. Sony Xperia 1 IV
126
42. LG Wing
125
42. OnePlus 8 Pro
125
42. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
125
45. Oppo Find N
124
45. Sony Xperia 5 III
124
45. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
124
48. Apple iPhone 12 Pro
123
48. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
123
50. Sony Xperia 1 III
122
50. Xiaomi 12 Pro
122
52. Huawei P40 Pro
120
53. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
116
54. Sony Xperia 5 II
108
55. Oppo Find X2 Pro
103
56. Google Pixel 4 XL
100
57. Microsoft Surface Duo
99
58. Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
98
59. Asus ROG Phone 3
92
60. Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
69

Pros

  • Good color rendering in every lighting condition
  • No frame drops when watching videos
  • Reduced light reflections thanks to anti-reflection film

Cons

  • Threshold for High Brightness Mode activation is too high when outdoors
  • Lack of brightness when watching HDR10 videos, and texture artifacts in details
  • Aliasing when playing video games

The Oppo Find N2 Flip display offered a satisfactory experience, with a strong showing in color rendering in all lighting conditions. When checking static content or viewing images, the Oppo Find N2 Flip proved to be particularly good in indoor conditions, with colors and brightness particularly well adjusted, making the screen very readable.

When using the device to watch HDR10 videos, our testers observed that the brightness was much too low to ensure comfortable viewing, and that the user might have to manually adjust the brightness adaptation. But the testers did not observe any HDR boost to improve the viewing of contents. The display appeared to sharpen details, but sometimes that would result in texture artifacts.

During our outdoor tests in direct sunlight, our experts observed that the screen did not reach the 1600 nits of maximum brightness advertised in the specifications, and that the High Brightness Mode did not activate soon enough, which would impact readability outdoors. Still, the device reached 1350 nits in an extremely bright environment (>100K lux), even though this kind of lighting condition is rarely experienced, and High Brightness Mode can be improved with some tuning.

This smartphone features an anti-reflection film, which not only reduced the visibility of the crease in all conditions but significantly improved readability outdoors.

Test summary

About DXOMARK Display tests: For scoring and analysis in our smartphone and other display reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective and perceptual tests under controlled lab and real-life conditions. Note that we evaluate display attributes using only the device’s built-in display hardware and its still image (gallery) and video apps at their default settings. (For in-depth information about how we evaluate smartphone and other displays, check out our articles, “How DXOMARK tests display quality” and “A closer look at DXOMARK Display testing.”

The following section gathers key elements of our exhaustive tests and analyses performed in DXOMARK laboratories. Detailed performance evaluations under the form of reports are available upon request. Do not hesitate to contact us.

Readability

126

Oppo Find N2 Flip

160

Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
i
How Display Readability score is composed

Readability evaluates how easily and comfortably users can read still content (photos & web) on the display under different real-life conditions. DXOMARK uses its Display Bench to recreate ambient light conditions ranging from total darkness to bright sunlight. In addition to laboratory tests, perceptual analysis is also made in real-life environments.

Learn more about how we test display readability
Brightness under various lighting conditions
Contrast under various lighting conditions


Readability in an indoor (1000 lux) environment
From left: Oppo Find N2 Flip, Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4, Vivo X Fold
(Photos for illustration only)


Readability in a sunlight (>90 000 lux) environment
From left: Oppo Find N2 Flip, Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4, Vivo X Fold
(Photos for illustration only)

Luminance uniformity measurement
This graph shows the uniformity of the display with a 20% gray pattern. The more visible the green color, the more uniform the display.

Color

152

Oppo Find N2 Flip

163

Huawei Mate 50 Pro
i
How Display Color score is composed

The color attribute evaluates the capacity of the device to accurately reproduce colors. The measurements taken are for fidelity, white point color, and gamut coverage. We perform color evaluations for different lighting conditions to see how well the device can manage color in the surrounding environment. Colors are measured using a spectrophotometer in a controlled lighting environment. Perceptual analysis of color rendering is against the reference pattern displayed on a calibrated professional monitor.

Learn more about how we test display color
White point under D65 illuminant at 1000 lux


Color rendering indoors (1000 lux)
Clockwise from top left: Oppo Find N2 Flip, Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4, Vivo X Fold
(Photos for illustration only)


Color rendering in sunlight (>90 000 lux)
Clockwise from top left: Oppo Find N2 Flip, Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4, Vivo X Fold
(Photos for illustration only)
Color fidelity measurements
Oppo Find N2 Flip, color fidelity at 1000 lux in the sRGB color space
Oppo Find N2 Flip, color fidelity at 1000 lux in the Display-P3 color space
Each arrow represents the color difference between a target color pattern (base of the arrow) and its actual measurement (tip of the arrow). The longer the arrow, the more visible the color difference is. If the arrow stays within the circle, the color difference will be visible only to trained eyes.
Color behavior on angle
This graph shows the color shift when the screen is at an angle. Each dot represents a measurement at a particular angle. Dots inside the inner circle exhibit no color shift in angle; those between the inner and outer circle have shifts that only trained experts will see; but those falling outside the outer circle are noticeable.

Video

127

Oppo Find N2 Flip

162

Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
i
How Display Video score is composed

Our video attribute evaluates the Standard Dynamic Range (SDR) and High Dynamic Range (HDR10) video handling of each device in indoor and low-light conditions. We measure tone mapping, color gamut, brightness and contrast of the display. We perform perceptual analysis against our professional reference monitor (Sony BVM-HX310) to ensure that the rendering respects the artistic intent.

Learn more about how we test display video
Video brightness at 10% APL in the dark ( < 5 lux)
Video rendering in a low-light (0 lux) environment
Clockwise from top left: Oppo Find N2 Flip, Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4, Vivo X Fold
(Photos for illustration only)
Video rendering in a low-light (0 lux) environment
From left: Oppo Find N2 Flip (HDR10), Oppo Find N2 Flip (SDR), Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4. On HDR10 video,  texture artifacts are visible in the details.
(Photos for illustration only)
Gamut coverage for video content
HDR10 Gamut coverage
SDR Gamut coverage
The primary colors are measured both in HDR10 and SDR. The extracted color gamut shows the extent of the color area that the device can render. To respect the artistic intent, the measured gamut should match the master color space of each video.

Motion

140

Oppo Find N2 Flip

155

Huawei P40 Pro
i
How Display Motion score is composed

The motion attribute evaluates the handling of dynamic contents. Frame drops, motion blur, and playback artifacts are scrutinized using games and videos.

Learn more about how we test display motion


Video frame drops
30 fps content
60 fps content
These long exposure photos present the number of frame irregularities in a 30-second video. A good performance shows a regular pattern (either a flat gray image or a pull-down pattern).

Touch

122

Oppo Find N2 Flip

165

OnePlus 9
i
How Display Touch score is composed

To evaluate touch, DXOMARK uses a touch robot and a high-speed camera to play and record a set of scenarios for smoothness, accuracy and response-time evaluation.

Learn more about how we test display touch
Average Touch Response Time Oppo Find N2 Flip
93 ms
Fast
Good
Bad
Slow
This response time test evaluates precisely the time elapsed between a single touch of the robot on the screen and the displayed action. This test is applied to activities that require a high reactivity, such as gaming.

Artifacts

114

Oppo Find N2 Flip

158

Vivo X Fold
i
How Display Artifacts score is composed

Evaluating artifacts means checking for the performance, image rendering and motion flaws that can affect the end-user experience. DXOMARK measures precisely the device’s reflectance and the presence of flicker, and assesses the impact of residual aliasing when playing video games, among other characteristics.

Learn more about how we test display motion
Average Reflectance (SCI) Oppo Find N2 Flip
1.6 %
Low
Good
Bad
High
Reflectance measurement (SCI)
Measurements above show the reflection of the device within the visible spectrum range (400 nm to 700 nm). It includes both diffuse and specular reflection.
Flicker Frequency Oppo Find N2 Flip
360 Hz
Bad
Good
Bad
Great
Flicker comparison
This graph represents the frequencies of lighting variation; the highest peak gives the main flicker frequency.
Aliasing (closeup)
Oppo Find N2 Flip
(Photos for illustration only)

Oppo Find N2 Flip – Crop1
Oppo Find N2 Flip – Crop 2
Oppo Find N2 Flip – Crop3

The post Oppo Find N2 Flip Display test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> https://www.dxomark.com/oppo-find-n2-flip-display-test/feed/ 0 Oppo Find N2 Flip DISPLAY DISPLAY Oppo_Find_N2_Flip_readability_indoor Oppo_Find_N2_Flip_readability_sunlight Oppo_Find_N2_Flip_readability_uniformity Oppo_Find_N2_Flip_color_indoor Oppo_Find_N2_Flip_color_sunlight Oppo_Find_N2_Flip_Color_Fidelity_Still_sRGB_1000lux_Zoom Oppo_Find_N2_Flip_Color_Fidelity_Still_P3_1000lux_Zoom Oppo_Find_N2_Flip_Scatter_Cono_White_P3_Zoom Oppo_Find_N2_Flip_video_lowlight_1 Cropartefact2 Oppo_Find_N2_Flip_Gamut_Video_HDR10 Oppo_Find_N2_Flip_Gamut_Video_SDR Oppo_Find_N2_Flip_motion_framedrops_fps_1 Oppo_Find_N2_Flip_motion_framedrops_fps_2 Oppo_Find_N2_Flip_artifacts_aliasing_full Oppo_Find_N2_Flip_artifacts_aliasing_crops_dut_1 Oppo_Find_N2_Flip_artifacts_aliasing_crops_dut_2 Oppo_Find_N2_Flip_artifacts_aliasing_crops_dut_3 Vivo X Fold Display test https://www.dxomark.com/vivo-x-fold-display-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/vivo-x-fold-display-test/#respond Fri, 17 Mar 2023 15:13:55 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=133648&preview=true&preview_id=133648 We put the main screen of the Vivo X Fold through our rigorous DXOMARK Display test suite to measure its performance across six criteria. In this summary of the test results, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases. Overview Key display specifications: 8.03 inches AMOLED, [...]

The post Vivo X Fold Display test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> We put the main screen of the Vivo X Fold through our rigorous DXOMARK Display test suite to measure its performance across six criteria. In this summary of the test results, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview

Key display specifications:

  • 8.03 inches AMOLED, (~89.4% screen-to-body ratio)
  • Dimensions: 162.0 x 74.5 x 14.6 mm (6.38 x 2.93 x 0.57 inches)
  • Resolution: 1916 x 2160 pixels, (~360 ppi density)
  • Refresh rate: 120 Hz

Scoring

Sub-scores and attributes included in the calculations of the global score.

Vivo X Fold Vivo X Fold
140
display
Readability
136

160

Color
162

163

Video
138

162

Motion
132

155

Touch
114

165

Artifacts
158

Best

DISPLAY
Position in Global Ranking
11th
1. Honor Magic5 Pro
151
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
149
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
149
4. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
148
4. Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
148
6. Google Pixel 7 Pro
146
6. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
146
8. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
145
9. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
144
10. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
141
11. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
140
11. Google Pixel 7
140
11. Honor Magic4 Ultimate
140
11. Vivo X Fold
140
15. Apple iPhone 14
139
15. Oppo Find X5 Pro
139
17. Oppo Find X5
138
18. Apple iPhone 13
136
18. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
136
18. Xiaomi 13 Pro
136
21. Huawei P50 Pro
135
21. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
135
21. Xiaomi 13
135
24. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
134
24. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
134
24. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
134
27. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
133
27. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Snapdragon)
133
27. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
133
27. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
133
31. Vivo X70 Pro+
132
32. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
131
32. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
131
32. Sony Xperia 5 IV
131
32. Xiaomi 12T
131
36. Apple iPhone 13 mini
130
36. Google Pixel 6 Pro
130
36. Honor Magic4 Pro
130
36. Oppo Find N2 Flip
130
36. Realme GT 2 Pro
130
36. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
130
42. OnePlus 10 Pro
129
42. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
129
42. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
129
42. TCL 20 Pro 5G
129
42. Vivo X60 Pro+
129
42. Xiaomi 11T
129
48. Asus ROG Phone 6
128
48. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
128
48. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
128
51. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
127
51. OnePlus 9 Pro
127
51. OnePlus 8T
127
51. Xiaomi 12T Pro
127
55. Oppo Find X3 Pro
126
55. Sony Xperia 1 IV
126
57. Google Pixel 6a
125
57. Google Pixel 6
125
57. LG Wing
125
57. OnePlus 9
125
57. OnePlus 8 Pro
125
57. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
125
57. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
125
57. Vivo iQOO 9 Pro
125
57. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
125
57. Xiaomi 11T Pro
125
67. Honor 70
124
67. Oppo Reno8 5G
124
67. Oppo Find N
124
67. Sony Xperia 5 III
124
67. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
124
67. Xiaomi Mi 11
124
73. Apple iPhone 12 Pro
123
73. Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
123
73. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
123
73. Vivo X51 5G
123
77. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
122
77. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
122
77. Oppo Reno8 Pro 5G
122
77. Oppo Find X3 Neo
122
77. Sony Xperia 1 III
122
77. Xiaomi 12 Pro
122
83. Apple iPhone 12
120
83. Huawei P40 Pro
120
83. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
120
86. Realme GT 5G
118
86. Xiaomi 12
118
88. Oppo Reno5 Pro+ 5G
117
88. Vivo iQOO 7 Legend
117
88. Xiaomi Mi 11i
117
91. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
116
91. Asus ROG Phone 5
116
93. Oppo Reno5 Pro 5G
114
94. Asus Zenfone 8
113
95. Oppo Reno6 5G
112
96. Motorola Edge 20 Pro
111
96. Oppo Find X3 Lite
111
96. Realme GT Neo 2 5G
111
96. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
111
100. Oppo Find X5 Lite
110
100. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
110
102. Lenovo Legion Y90
109
102. OnePlus Nord 2 5G
109
104. Sony Xperia 5 II
108
105. POCO F4 GT
107
105. Xiaomi Redmi K50 Gaming
107
107. Nubia RedMagic 6 Pro
105
108. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
104
108. ZTE Axon 30 Ultra
104
110. Oppo Find X2 Pro
103
111. Google Pixel 5
101
112. Google Pixel 4 XL
100
112. Sony Xperia 10 IV
100
114. Microsoft Surface Duo
99
115. Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
98
116. Nubia RedMagic 7 Pro
97
117. Black Shark 4S Pro
95
117. Black Shark 4 Pro
95
117. Xiaomi Mi 10T Pro 5G
95
120. Black Shark 5 Pro
94
120. Vivo X80 Lite 5G
94
122. Asus ROG Phone 3
92
123. Fairphone 4
87
124. Crosscall Action-X5
77
125. Samsung Galaxy A22 5G
74
126. Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
69
127. Nokia 8.3 5G
65
128. Lenovo Legion Phone 2 Pro
60
129. Samsung Galaxy A12
53
130. Realme C21
52
DISPLAY
Position in Ultra-Premium Ranking
10th
1. Honor Magic5 Pro
151
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
149
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
149
4. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
148
5. Google Pixel 7 Pro
146
5. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
146
7. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
145
8. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
144
9. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
141
10. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
140
10. Honor Magic4 Ultimate
140
10. Vivo X Fold
140
13. Oppo Find X5 Pro
139
14. Oppo Find X5
138
15. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
136
15. Xiaomi 13 Pro
136
17. Huawei P50 Pro
135
17. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
135
19. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
134
19. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
134
19. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
134
22. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
133
22. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
133
24. Vivo X70 Pro+
132
25. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
131
25. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
131
25. Sony Xperia 5 IV
131
28. Google Pixel 6 Pro
130
28. Honor Magic4 Pro
130
28. Oppo Find N2 Flip
130
31. OnePlus 10 Pro
129
31. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
129
31. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
129
31. Vivo X60 Pro+
129
35. Asus ROG Phone 6
128
35. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
128
35. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
128
38. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
127
38. OnePlus 9 Pro
127
40. Oppo Find X3 Pro
126
40. Sony Xperia 1 IV
126
42. LG Wing
125
42. OnePlus 8 Pro
125
42. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
125
45. Oppo Find N
124
45. Sony Xperia 5 III
124
45. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
124
48. Apple iPhone 12 Pro
123
48. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
123
50. Sony Xperia 1 III
122
50. Xiaomi 12 Pro
122
52. Huawei P40 Pro
120
53. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
116
54. Sony Xperia 5 II
108
55. Oppo Find X2 Pro
103
56. Google Pixel 4 XL
100
57. Microsoft Surface Duo
99
58. Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
98
59. Asus ROG Phone 3
92
60. Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
69

Pros

  • Good color fidelity in all tested conditions
  • Effective anti-reflective film in all lighting conditions
  • Good brightness and color on HDR10 content

Cons

  • Too-high daytime brightness in low light; too-low nighttime brightness with BLF on
  • Touch lacks smoothness and frame drops are frequent when gaming
  • Visible duplications when scrolling on the web and in the gallery app

The Vivo X Fold main screen display performed well in our tests, particularly in color, and in artifacts, where it is at the top of the charts among all devices in our database thus far.

The Vivo X Fold display really stood out in its consistent color fidelity, including skin tones, in all lighting environments and use cases. The device’s color score was just shy of the current top score.

Further, the device ships with an anti-reflective film that not only reduces the visibility of the main screen’s crease but also improves readability in all lighting conditions, particularly in outdoor conditions. While the device’s peak brightness was not as high as that of other devices, brightness was well-managed thanks to the anti-reflective film and tuning.

Where the device falters, however, is in its control of motion and of touch, with duplications, frequent frame drops, and a lack of smoothness affecting user satisfaction, particularly when gaming.

Test summary

About DXOMARK Display tests: For scoring and analysis in our smartphone and other display reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective and perceptual tests under controlled lab and real-life conditions. Note that we evaluate display attributes using only the device’s built-in display hardware and its still image (gallery) and video apps at their default settings. (For in-depth information about how we evaluate smartphone and other displays, check out our articles, “How DXOMARK tests display quality” and “A closer look at DXOMARK Display testing.”

The following section gathers key elements of our exhaustive tests and analyses performed in DXOMARK laboratories. Detailed performance evaluations under the form of reports are available upon request. Do not hesitate to contact us.

Readability

136

Vivo X Fold

160

Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
i
How Display Readability score is composed

Readability evaluates how easily and comfortably users can read still content (photos & web) on the display under different real-life conditions. DXOMARK uses its Display Bench to recreate ambient light conditions ranging from total darkness to bright sunlight. In addition to laboratory tests, perceptual analysis is also made in real-life environments.

Learn more about how we test display readability
Brightness under various lighting conditions
Contrast under various lighting conditions


Readability in an indoor (1000 lux) environment
From left: Vivo X Fold, Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4, Vivo X70 Pro+, Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
(Photos for illustration only)


Readability in a sunlight (>90 000 lux) environment
From left: Vivo X Fold (main screen), Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4, Vivo X70 Pro+, Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
(Photos for illustration only)

Luminance uniformity measurement
This graph shows the uniformity of the display with a 20% gray pattern. The more visible the green color, the more uniform the display.

Color

162

Vivo X Fold

163

Huawei Mate 50 Pro
i
How Display Color score is composed

The color attribute evaluates the capacity of the device to accurately reproduce colors. The measurements taken are for fidelity, white point color, and gamut coverage. We perform color evaluations for different lighting conditions to see how well the device can manage color in the surrounding environment. Colors are measured using a spectrophotometer in a controlled lighting environment. Perceptual analysis of color rendering is against the reference pattern displayed on a calibrated professional monitor.

Learn more about how we test display color
White point under D65 illuminant at 1000 lux


Color rendering indoors (1000 lux)
Clockwise from top left: Vivo X Fold (main screen), Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4, Vivo X70 Pro+, Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
(Photos for illustration only)


Color rendering in sunlight (>90 000 lux)
Clockwise from top left: Vivo X Fold (main screen), Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4, Vivo X70 Pro+, Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
(Photos for illustration only)
Color fidelity measurements
Vivo X Fold (main screen), color fidelity at 1000 lux in the sRGB color space
Vivo X Fold (main screen), color fidelity at 1000 lux in the Display-P3 color space
Each arrow represents the color difference between a target color pattern (base of the arrow) and its actual measurement (tip of the arrow). The longer the arrow, the more visible the color difference is. If the arrow stays within the circle, the color difference will be visible only to trained eyes.
Color behavior on angle
This graph shows the color shift when the screen is at an angle. Each dot represents a measurement at a particular angle. Dots inside the inner circle exhibit no color shift in angle; those between the inner and outer circle have shifts that only trained experts will see; but those falling outside the outer circle are noticeable.

Video

138

Vivo X Fold

162

Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
i
How Display Video score is composed

Our video attribute evaluates the Standard Dynamic Range (SDR) and High Dynamic Range (HDR10) video handling of each device in indoor and low-light conditions. We measure tone mapping, color gamut, brightness and contrast of the display. We perform perceptual analysis against our professional reference monitor (Sony BVM-HX310) to ensure that the rendering respects the artistic intent.

Learn more about how we test display video
Video brightness at 10% APL in the dark ( < 5 lux)


Video rendering in a low-light (0 lux) environment
Clockwise from top left: Vivo X Fold (main screen), Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4, Vivo X70 Pro+, Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
(Photos for illustration only)

Gamut coverage for video content
HDR10 Gamut coverage
SDR Gamut coverage
The primary colors are measured both in HDR10 and SDR. The extracted color gamut shows the extent of the color area that the device can render. To respect the artistic intent, the measured gamut should match the master color space of each video.

Motion

132

Vivo X Fold

155

Huawei P40 Pro
i
How Display Motion score is composed

The motion attribute evaluates the handling of dynamic contents. Frame drops, motion blur, and playback artifacts are scrutinized using games and videos.

Learn more about how we test display motion


Video frame drops
30 fps content
60 fps content
These long exposure photos present the number of frame irregularities in a 30-second video. A good performance shows a regular pattern (either a flat gray image or a pull-down pattern).

Touch

114

Vivo X Fold

165

OnePlus 9
i
How Display Touch score is composed

To evaluate touch, DXOMARK uses a touch robot and a high-speed camera to play and record a set of scenarios for smoothness, accuracy and response-time evaluation.

Learn more about how we test display touch
Average Touch Response Time Vivo X Fold
109 ms
Fast
Good
Bad
Slow
This response time test evaluates precisely the time elapsed between a single touch of the robot on the screen and the displayed action. This test is applied to activities that require a high reactivity, such as gaming.

Artifacts

158

Vivo X Fold

Best

i
How Display Artifacts score is composed

Evaluating artifacts means checking for the performance, image rendering and motion flaws that can affect the end-user experience. DXOMARK measures precisely the device’s reflectance and the presence of flicker, and assesses the impact of residual aliasing when playing video games, among other characteristics.

Learn more about how we test display motion
Average Reflectance (SCI) Vivo X Fold
1.1 %
Low
Good
Bad
High
Reflectance measurement (SCI)
Measurements above show the reflection of the device within the visible spectrum range (400 nm to 700 nm). It includes both diffuse and specular reflection.
Flicker Frequency Vivo X Fold
240 Hz
Bad
Good
Bad
Great
Flicker comparison
This graph represents the frequencies of lighting variation; the highest peak gives the main flicker frequency.
Aliasing (closeup)
Vivo X Fold (main screen)
(Photo for illustration only)

The post Vivo X Fold Display test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> https://www.dxomark.com/vivo-x-fold-display-test/feed/ 0 Vivo X Fold Best DISPLAY DISPLAY Vivo_X_Fold_readability_indoor Vivo_X_Fold_readability_sunlight Vivo_X_Fold_readability_uniformity Vivo_X_Fold_White_Point_CCT_vs_Ambient Vivo_X_Fold_color_indoor Vivo_X_Fold_color_sunlight Vivo_X_Fold_Color_Fidelity_Still_sRGB_1000lux_Zoom Vivo_X_Fold_Color_Fidelity_Still_P3_1000lux_Zoom Vivo_X_Fold_Scatter_Cono_White_P3_Zoom Vivo_X_Fold_video_lowlight_1 Vivo_X_Fold_Gamut_Video_HDR10 Vivo_X_Fold_Gamut_Video_SDR Vivo_X_Fold_motion_framedrops_fps_1 Vivo_X_Fold_motion_framedrops_fps_2 Best Vivo_X_Fold_artifacts_aliasing_full Xiaomi 13 Display test https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-13-display-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-13-display-test/#respond Thu, 09 Mar 2023 15:19:52 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=138680&preview=true&preview_id=138680 We put the Xiaomi 13 through our rigorous DXOMARK Display test suite to measure its performance across six criteria. In this test results, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases. Overview Key display specifications: 6.38 inches AMOLED, (~90.1% screen-to-body ratio) Dimensions: 152.8 x 71.5 x [...]

The post Xiaomi 13 Display test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> We put the Xiaomi 13 through our rigorous DXOMARK Display test suite to measure its performance across six criteria. In this test results, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview

Key display specifications:

  • 6.38 inches AMOLED, (~90.1% screen-to-body ratio)
  • Dimensions: 152.8 x 71.5 x 8.1 mm (6.02 x 2.81 x 0.32 inches)
  • Resolution: 1080 x 2400 pixels, (~414 ppi density)
  • Aspect ratio: 20:9
  • Refresh rate: 120 Hz

Scoring

Sub-scores and attributes included in the calculations of the global score.

Xiaomi 13 Xiaomi 13
135
display
Readability
137

160

Color
160

163

Video
126

162

Motion
135

155

Touch
118

165

Artifacts
124

158

DISPLAY
Position in Global Ranking
21st
1. Honor Magic5 Pro
151
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
149
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
149
4. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
148
4. Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
148
6. Google Pixel 7 Pro
146
6. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
146
8. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
145
9. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
144
10. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
141
11. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
140
11. Google Pixel 7
140
11. Honor Magic4 Ultimate
140
11. Vivo X Fold
140
15. Apple iPhone 14
139
15. Oppo Find X5 Pro
139
17. Oppo Find X5
138
18. Apple iPhone 13
136
18. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
136
18. Xiaomi 13 Pro
136
21. Huawei P50 Pro
135
21. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
135
21. Xiaomi 13
135
24. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
134
24. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
134
24. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
134
27. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
133
27. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Snapdragon)
133
27. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
133
27. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
133
31. Vivo X70 Pro+
132
32. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
131
32. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
131
32. Sony Xperia 5 IV
131
32. Xiaomi 12T
131
36. Apple iPhone 13 mini
130
36. Google Pixel 6 Pro
130
36. Honor Magic4 Pro
130
36. Oppo Find N2 Flip
130
36. Realme GT 2 Pro
130
36. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
130
42. OnePlus 10 Pro
129
42. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
129
42. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
129
42. TCL 20 Pro 5G
129
42. Vivo X60 Pro+
129
42. Xiaomi 11T
129
48. Asus ROG Phone 6
128
48. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
128
48. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
128
51. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
127
51. OnePlus 9 Pro
127
51. OnePlus 8T
127
51. Xiaomi 12T Pro
127
55. Oppo Find X3 Pro
126
55. Sony Xperia 1 IV
126
57. Google Pixel 6a
125
57. Google Pixel 6
125
57. LG Wing
125
57. OnePlus 9
125
57. OnePlus 8 Pro
125
57. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
125
57. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
125
57. Vivo iQOO 9 Pro
125
57. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
125
57. Xiaomi 11T Pro
125
67. Honor 70
124
67. Oppo Reno8 5G
124
67. Oppo Find N
124
67. Sony Xperia 5 III
124
67. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
124
67. Xiaomi Mi 11
124
73. Apple iPhone 12 Pro
123
73. Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
123
73. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
123
73. Vivo X51 5G
123
77. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
122
77. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
122
77. Oppo Reno8 Pro 5G
122
77. Oppo Find X3 Neo
122
77. Sony Xperia 1 III
122
77. Xiaomi 12 Pro
122
83. Apple iPhone 12
120
83. Huawei P40 Pro
120
83. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
120
86. Realme GT 5G
118
86. Xiaomi 12
118
88. Oppo Reno5 Pro+ 5G
117
88. Vivo iQOO 7 Legend
117
88. Xiaomi Mi 11i
117
91. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
116
91. Asus ROG Phone 5
116
93. Oppo Reno5 Pro 5G
114
94. Asus Zenfone 8
113
95. Oppo Reno6 5G
112
96. Motorola Edge 20 Pro
111
96. Oppo Find X3 Lite
111
96. Realme GT Neo 2 5G
111
96. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
111
100. Oppo Find X5 Lite
110
100. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
110
102. Lenovo Legion Y90
109
102. OnePlus Nord 2 5G
109
104. Sony Xperia 5 II
108
105. POCO F4 GT
107
105. Xiaomi Redmi K50 Gaming
107
107. Nubia RedMagic 6 Pro
105
108. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
104
108. ZTE Axon 30 Ultra
104
110. Oppo Find X2 Pro
103
111. Google Pixel 5
101
112. Google Pixel 4 XL
100
112. Sony Xperia 10 IV
100
114. Microsoft Surface Duo
99
115. Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
98
116. Nubia RedMagic 7 Pro
97
117. Black Shark 4S Pro
95
117. Black Shark 4 Pro
95
117. Xiaomi Mi 10T Pro 5G
95
120. Black Shark 5 Pro
94
120. Vivo X80 Lite 5G
94
122. Asus ROG Phone 3
92
123. Fairphone 4
87
124. Crosscall Action-X5
77
125. Samsung Galaxy A22 5G
74
126. Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
69
127. Nokia 8.3 5G
65
128. Lenovo Legion Phone 2 Pro
60
129. Samsung Galaxy A12
53
130. Realme C21
52
DISPLAY
Position in Premium Ranking
4th
1. Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
148
2. Apple iPhone 14
139
3. Apple iPhone 13
136
4. Xiaomi 13
135
5. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Snapdragon)
133
5. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
133
7. Apple iPhone 13 mini
130
7. Realme GT 2 Pro
130
7. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
130
10. Xiaomi 12T Pro
127
11. OnePlus 9
125
11. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
125
11. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
125
11. Vivo iQOO 9 Pro
125
11. Xiaomi 11T Pro
125
16. Xiaomi Mi 11
124
17. Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
123
17. Vivo X51 5G
123
19. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
122
19. Oppo Reno8 Pro 5G
122
19. Oppo Find X3 Neo
122
22. Apple iPhone 12
120
23. Xiaomi 12
118
24. Oppo Reno5 Pro+ 5G
117
24. Xiaomi Mi 11i
117
26. Asus ROG Phone 5
116
27. Asus Zenfone 8
113
28. Motorola Edge 20 Pro
111
29. Lenovo Legion Y90
109
30. Nubia RedMagic 6 Pro
105
31. ZTE Axon 30 Ultra
104
32. Google Pixel 5
101
33. Nubia RedMagic 7 Pro
97
34. Black Shark 4S Pro
95
34. Black Shark 4 Pro
95
36. Black Shark 5 Pro
94
37. Nokia 8.3 5G
65
38. Lenovo Legion Phone 2 Pro
60

Pros

  • Good color fidelity
  • Well-managed contrast and colors for watching HDR10 content
  • Well adapted for use in low light thanks to good brightness and good blue light filter

Cons

  • Lacks readability under sunlight
  • Frequent ghost touches when using the device with one hand
  • Frame mismatches when watching videos

The Xiaomi 13’s display performance was overall very good, with a very strong showing in color, which had a pleasant saturation.

While the screen was not easily readable in sunlight, the device’s readability proved to be very good in low light because of good brightness levels in such conditions. Our engineers were eager to put the Xiaomi 13’s advertised 1900 nit peak brightness to the test, but the peak brightness level measured 1640 nits.

In video, both contrast and colors were well-managed on the device, particularly when watching HDR10 video content. The screen was also prone to frame mismatches when viewing videos.

The screen executed some ghost touches when trying to navigate it with a single hand.

By default, the Xiaomi 13 has a low flicker frequency, which could make viewing the screen for a long time in low light uncomfortable for some people. However, a flicker-free option is available in the settings, and could improve flicker performance. This was not part of our tests, which covers the default mode.

Test summary

About DXOMARK Display tests: For scoring and analysis in our smartphone and other display reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective and perceptual tests under controlled lab and real-life conditions. Note that we evaluate display attributes using only the device’s built-in display hardware and its still image (gallery) and video apps at their default settings. (For in-depth information about how we evaluate smartphone and other displays, check out our articles, “How DXOMARK tests display quality” and “A closer look at DXOMARK Display testing.”

The following section gathers key elements of our exhaustive tests and analyses performed in DXOMARK laboratories. Detailed performance evaluations under the form of reports are available upon request. Do not hesitate to contact us.

Readability

137

Xiaomi 13

160

Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
i
How Display Readability score is composed

Readability evaluates how easily and comfortably users can read still content (photos & web) on the display under different real-life conditions. DXOMARK uses its Display Bench to recreate ambient light conditions ranging from total darkness to bright sunlight. In addition to laboratory tests, perceptual analysis is also made in real-life environments.

Learn more about how we test display readability
Brightness under various lighting conditions
Contrast under various lighting conditions


Readability in an indoor (1000 lux) environment
From left to right: Xiaomi 13, Xiaomi 12, Google Pixel 7, Apple iPhone 14
(Photos for illustration only)


Readability in a sunlight (>90 000 lux) environment
From left to right: Xiaomi 13, Xiaomi 12, Google Pixel 7, Apple iPhone 14
(Photos for illustration only)

Luminance uniformity measurement
This graph shows the uniformity of the display with a 20% gray pattern. The more visible the green color, the more uniform the display.

Color

160

Xiaomi 13

163

Huawei Mate 50 Pro
i
How Display Color score is composed

The color attribute evaluates the capacity of the device to accurately reproduce colors. The measurements taken are for fidelity, white point color, and gamut coverage. We perform color evaluations for different lighting conditions to see how well the device can manage color in the surrounding environment. Colors are measured using a spectrophotometer in a controlled lighting environment. Perceptual analysis of color rendering is against the reference pattern displayed on a calibrated professional monitor.

Learn more about how we test display color
White point under D65 illuminant at 1000 lux


Color rendering in sunlight (>90 000 lux)
Clockwise from top left: Xiaomi 13, Xiaomi 12, Google Pixel 7, Apple iPhone 14
(Photos for illustration only)
Color fidelity measurements
Xiaomi 13, color fidelity at 1000 lux in the sRGB color space
Xiaomi 13, color fidelity at 1000 lux in the Display-P3 color space
Each arrow represents the color difference between a target color pattern (base of the arrow) and its actual measurement (tip of the arrow). The longer the arrow, the more visible the color difference is. If the arrow stays within the circle, the color difference will be visible only to trained eyes.
Color behavior on angle
This graph shows the color shift when the screen is at an angle. Each dot represents a measurement at a particular angle. Dots inside the inner circle exhibit no color shift in angle; those between the inner and outer circle have shifts that only trained experts will see; but those falling outside the outer circle are noticeable.

Video

126

Xiaomi 13

162

Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
i
How Display Video score is composed

Our video attribute evaluates the Standard Dynamic Range (SDR) and High Dynamic Range (HDR10) video handling of each device in indoor and low-light conditions. We measure tone mapping, color gamut, brightness and contrast of the display. We perform perceptual analysis against our professional reference monitor (Sony BVM-HX310) to ensure that the rendering respects the artistic intent.

Learn more about how we test display video
Video brightness at 10% APL in the dark ( < 5 lux)


Video rendering in a low-light (0 lux) environment
Clockwise from top left: Xiaomi 13, Xiaomi 12, Google Pixel 7, Apple iPhone 14
(Photos for illustration only)

Gamut coverage for video content
HDR10 Gamut coverage
SDR Gamut coverage
The primary colors are measured both in HDR10 and SDR. The extracted color gamut shows the extent of the color area that the device can render. To respect the artistic intent, the measured gamut should match the master color space of each video.

Motion

135

Xiaomi 13

155

Huawei P40 Pro
i
How Display Motion score is composed

The motion attribute evaluates the handling of dynamic contents. Frame drops, motion blur, and playback artifacts are scrutinized using games and videos.

Learn more about how we test display motion


Video frame drops
30 fps content
60 fps content
These long exposure photos present the number of frame irregularities in a 30-second video. A good performance shows a regular pattern (either a flat gray image or a pull-down pattern).

Touch

118

Xiaomi 13

165

OnePlus 9
i
How Display Touch score is composed

To evaluate touch, DXOMARK uses a touch robot and a high-speed camera to play and record a set of scenarios for smoothness, accuracy and response-time evaluation.

Learn more about how we test display touch
Average Touch Response Time Xiaomi 13
73 ms
Fast
Good
Bad
Slow
This response time test evaluates precisely the time elapsed between a single touch of the robot on the screen and the displayed action. This test is applied to activities that require a high reactivity, such as gaming.

Artifacts

124

Xiaomi 13

158

Vivo X Fold
i
How Display Artifacts score is composed

Evaluating artifacts means checking for the performance, image rendering and motion flaws that can affect the end-user experience. DXOMARK measures precisely the device’s reflectance and the presence of flicker, and assesses the impact of residual aliasing when playing video games, among other characteristics.

Learn more about how we test display motion
Average Reflectance (SCI) Xiaomi 13
4.7 %
Low
Good
Bad
High
Reflectance measurement (SCI)
Measurements above show the reflection of the device within the visible spectrum range (400 nm to 700 nm). It includes both diffuse and specular reflection.
Flicker Frequency Xiaomi 13
480 Hz
Bad
Good
Bad
Great
Flicker comparison
This graph represents the frequencies of lighting variation; the highest peak gives the main flicker frequency.
Aliasing (closeup)
Xiaomi 13
(Photo for illustration only)

The post Xiaomi 13 Display test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-13-display-test/feed/ 0 Xiaomi 13 DISPLAY DISPLAY Xiaomi_13_readability_indoor-1 Xiaomi_13_readability_sunlight-1 Xiaomi_13_readability_uniformity-1 Xiaomi_13_White_Point_CCT_vs_Ambient-1 Xiaomi_13_color_sunlight-1 Xiaomi_13_Color_Fidelity_Still_sRGB_1000lux_Zoom-1 Xiaomi_13_Color_Fidelity_Still_P3_1000lux_Zoom-1 Xiaomi_13_Scatter_Cono_White_P3_Zoom-1 Xiaomi_13_video_lowlight_1-1 Xiaomi_13_Gamut_Video_HDR10-1 Xiaomi_13_Gamut_Video_SDR-1 Xiaomi_13_motion_framedrops_fps_1-1 Xiaomi_13_motion_framedrops_fps_2-1 Xiaomi_13_artifacts_aliasing_full-1 Xiaomi 13 Pro Display test https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-13-pro-display-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-13-pro-display-test/#respond Thu, 09 Mar 2023 12:53:34 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=138842&preview=true&preview_id=138842 We put the Xiaomi 13 Pro through our rigorous DXOMARK Display test suite to measure its performance across six criteria. In this test results, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases. Overview Key display specifications: 6.73 inches AMOLED, (~90.8% screen-to-body ratio) Dimensions: 162.9 x 74.6 [...]

The post Xiaomi 13 Pro Display test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> We put the Xiaomi 13 Pro through our rigorous DXOMARK Display test suite to measure its performance across six criteria. In this test results, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview

Key display specifications:

  • 6.73 inches AMOLED, (~90.8% screen-to-body ratio)
  • Dimensions: 162.9 x 74.6 x 8.38 mm (6.41 x 2.94 x 0.34 inches)
  • Resolution: 1440 x 3200 pixels, (~521 ppi density)
  • Aspect ratio: 20:9
  • Refresh rate: 120 Hz

Scoring

Sub-scores and attributes included in the calculations of the global score.

Xiaomi 13 Pro Xiaomi 13 Pro
136
display
Readability
144

160

Color
159

163

Video
121

162

Motion
130

155

Touch
109

165

Artifacts
130

158

DISPLAY
Position in Global Ranking
18th
1. Honor Magic5 Pro
151
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
149
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
149
4. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
148
4. Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
148
6. Google Pixel 7 Pro
146
6. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
146
8. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
145
9. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
144
10. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
141
11. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
140
11. Google Pixel 7
140
11. Honor Magic4 Ultimate
140
11. Vivo X Fold
140
15. Apple iPhone 14
139
15. Oppo Find X5 Pro
139
17. Oppo Find X5
138
18. Apple iPhone 13
136
18. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
136
18. Xiaomi 13 Pro
136
21. Huawei P50 Pro
135
21. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
135
21. Xiaomi 13
135
24. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
134
24. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
134
24. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
134
27. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
133
27. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Snapdragon)
133
27. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
133
27. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
133
31. Vivo X70 Pro+
132
32. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
131
32. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
131
32. Sony Xperia 5 IV
131
32. Xiaomi 12T
131
36. Apple iPhone 13 mini
130
36. Google Pixel 6 Pro
130
36. Honor Magic4 Pro
130
36. Oppo Find N2 Flip
130
36. Realme GT 2 Pro
130
36. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
130
42. OnePlus 10 Pro
129
42. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
129
42. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
129
42. TCL 20 Pro 5G
129
42. Vivo X60 Pro+
129
42. Xiaomi 11T
129
48. Asus ROG Phone 6
128
48. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
128
48. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
128
51. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
127
51. OnePlus 9 Pro
127
51. OnePlus 8T
127
51. Xiaomi 12T Pro
127
55. Oppo Find X3 Pro
126
55. Sony Xperia 1 IV
126
57. Google Pixel 6a
125
57. Google Pixel 6
125
57. LG Wing
125
57. OnePlus 9
125
57. OnePlus 8 Pro
125
57. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
125
57. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
125
57. Vivo iQOO 9 Pro
125
57. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
125
57. Xiaomi 11T Pro
125
67. Honor 70
124
67. Oppo Reno8 5G
124
67. Oppo Find N
124
67. Sony Xperia 5 III
124
67. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
124
67. Xiaomi Mi 11
124
73. Apple iPhone 12 Pro
123
73. Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
123
73. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
123
73. Vivo X51 5G
123
77. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
122
77. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
122
77. Oppo Reno8 Pro 5G
122
77. Oppo Find X3 Neo
122
77. Sony Xperia 1 III
122
77. Xiaomi 12 Pro
122
83. Apple iPhone 12
120
83. Huawei P40 Pro
120
83. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
120
86. Realme GT 5G
118
86. Xiaomi 12
118
88. Oppo Reno5 Pro+ 5G
117
88. Vivo iQOO 7 Legend
117
88. Xiaomi Mi 11i
117
91. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
116
91. Asus ROG Phone 5
116
93. Oppo Reno5 Pro 5G
114
94. Asus Zenfone 8
113
95. Oppo Reno6 5G
112
96. Motorola Edge 20 Pro
111
96. Oppo Find X3 Lite
111
96. Realme GT Neo 2 5G
111
96. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
111
100. Oppo Find X5 Lite
110
100. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
110
102. Lenovo Legion Y90
109
102. OnePlus Nord 2 5G
109
104. Sony Xperia 5 II
108
105. POCO F4 GT
107
105. Xiaomi Redmi K50 Gaming
107
107. Nubia RedMagic 6 Pro
105
108. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
104
108. ZTE Axon 30 Ultra
104
110. Oppo Find X2 Pro
103
111. Google Pixel 5
101
112. Google Pixel 4 XL
100
112. Sony Xperia 10 IV
100
114. Microsoft Surface Duo
99
115. Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
98
116. Nubia RedMagic 7 Pro
97
117. Black Shark 4S Pro
95
117. Black Shark 4 Pro
95
117. Xiaomi Mi 10T Pro 5G
95
120. Black Shark 5 Pro
94
120. Vivo X80 Lite 5G
94
122. Asus ROG Phone 3
92
123. Fairphone 4
87
124. Crosscall Action-X5
77
125. Samsung Galaxy A22 5G
74
126. Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
69
127. Nokia 8.3 5G
65
128. Lenovo Legion Phone 2 Pro
60
129. Samsung Galaxy A12
53
130. Realme C21
52
DISPLAY
Position in Ultra-Premium Ranking
15th
1. Honor Magic5 Pro
151
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
149
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
149
4. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
148
5. Google Pixel 7 Pro
146
5. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
146
7. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
145
8. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
144
9. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
141
10. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
140
10. Honor Magic4 Ultimate
140
10. Vivo X Fold
140
13. Oppo Find X5 Pro
139
14. Oppo Find X5
138
15. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
136
15. Xiaomi 13 Pro
136
17. Huawei P50 Pro
135
17. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
135
19. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
134
19. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
134
19. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
134
22. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
133
22. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
133
24. Vivo X70 Pro+
132
25. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
131
25. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
131
25. Sony Xperia 5 IV
131
28. Google Pixel 6 Pro
130
28. Honor Magic4 Pro
130
28. Oppo Find N2 Flip
130
31. OnePlus 10 Pro
129
31. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
129
31. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
129
31. Vivo X60 Pro+
129
35. Asus ROG Phone 6
128
35. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
128
35. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
128
38. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
127
38. OnePlus 9 Pro
127
40. Oppo Find X3 Pro
126
40. Sony Xperia 1 IV
126
42. LG Wing
125
42. OnePlus 8 Pro
125
42. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
125
45. Oppo Find N
124
45. Sony Xperia 5 III
124
45. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
124
48. Apple iPhone 12 Pro
123
48. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
123
50. Sony Xperia 1 III
122
50. Xiaomi 12 Pro
122
52. Huawei P40 Pro
120
53. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
116
54. Sony Xperia 5 II
108
55. Oppo Find X2 Pro
103
56. Google Pixel 4 XL
100
57. Microsoft Surface Duo
99
58. Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
98
59. Asus ROG Phone 3
92
60. Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
69

Pros

  • Good color fidelity
  • Well-managed contrast and colors for watching HDR10 content
  • Flicker-free display, and brightness adapted for low-light use

Cons

  • Poor readability under sunlight
  • Low default brightness level for HDR10 videos
  • Frame mismatches when playing videos

The Xiaomi 13 Pro’s flicker-free display provided an overall satisfying experience and finds itself in the upper portion of our database, with a very strong showing in color.

Brightness adaptation was good in most conditions except indoors, where brightness was lower than its competitors. Screen readability diminished when the device was used under sunlight as details were lost, especially in dark areas. In addition, our engineers were eager to put Xiaomi 13 Pro’s advertised 1900 nit peak brightness to the test, but their measurements reached 1670 nits of peak brightness.

Both contrast and colors were well-managed on the device, particularly when watching HDR10 video content. But brightness adaptation to HDR10 content was low, compared with the adaptation of other devices, which feature 10 nits to 15 nits of more brightness. Xiaomi 13 Pro users might need to calibrate the brightness to get a more satisfying HDR10 rendering. In other areas, the Xiaomi 13 Pro’s brightness and contrast levels were little changed from its predecessor, the Xiaomi 12 Pro.

When it comes to the video game experience, the device showed no frame mismatches, but ghost touches were frequent.

Test summary

About DXOMARK Display tests: For scoring and analysis in our smartphone and other display reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective and perceptual tests under controlled lab and real-life conditions. Note that we evaluate display attributes using only the device’s built-in display hardware and its still image (gallery) and video apps at their default settings. (For in-depth information about how we evaluate smartphone and other displays, check out our articles, “How DXOMARK tests display quality” and “A closer look at DXOMARK Display testing.”

The following section gathers key elements of our exhaustive tests and analyses performed in DXOMARK laboratories. Detailed performance evaluations under the form of reports are available upon request. Do not hesitate to contact us.

Readability

144

Xiaomi 13 Pro

160

Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
i
How Display Readability score is composed

Readability evaluates how easily and comfortably users can read still content (photos & web) on the display under different real-life conditions. DXOMARK uses its Display Bench to recreate ambient light conditions ranging from total darkness to bright sunlight. In addition to laboratory tests, perceptual analysis is also made in real-life environments.

Learn more about how we test display readability
Brightness under various lighting conditions
Contrast under various lighting conditions


Readability in an indoor (1000 lux) environment
From left to right: Xiaomi 13 Pro, Xiaomi 12 Pro, Google Pixel 7 Pro, Apple iPhone 14
(Photos for illustration only)


Readability in a sunlight (>90 000 lux) environment
From left to right: Xiaomi 13 Pro, Xiaomi 12 Pro, Google Pixel 7 Pro, Apple iPhone 14
(Photos for illustration only)

Luminance uniformity measurement
This graph shows the uniformity of the display with a 20% gray pattern. The more visible the green color, the more uniform the display.

Color

159

Xiaomi 13 Pro

163

Huawei Mate 50 Pro
i
How Display Color score is composed

The color attribute evaluates the capacity of the device to accurately reproduce colors. The measurements taken are for fidelity, white point color, and gamut coverage. We perform color evaluations for different lighting conditions to see how well the device can manage color in the surrounding environment. Colors are measured using a spectrophotometer in a controlled lighting environment. Perceptual analysis of color rendering is against the reference pattern displayed on a calibrated professional monitor.

Learn more about how we test display color
White point under D65 illuminant at 1000 lux


Color rendering indoors (1000 lux)
Clockwise from top left: Xiaomi 13 Pro, Xiaomi 12 Pro, Google Pixel 7 Pro, Apple iPhone 14
(Photos for illustration only)


Color rendering in sunlight (>90 000 lux)
Clockwise from top left: Xiaomi 13 Pro, Xiaomi 12 Pro, Google Pixel 7 Pro, Apple iPhone 14
(Photos for illustration only)
Color fidelity measurements
Xiaomi 13 Pro, color fidelity at 1000 lux in the sRGB color space
Xiaomi 13 Pro, color fidelity at 1000 lux in the Display-P3 color space
Each arrow represents the color difference between a target color pattern (base of the arrow) and its actual measurement (tip of the arrow). The longer the arrow, the more visible the color difference is. If the arrow stays within the circle, the color difference will be visible only to trained eyes.
Color behavior on angle
This graph shows the color shift when the screen is at an angle. Each dot represents a measurement at a particular angle. Dots inside the inner circle exhibit no color shift in angle; those between the inner and outer circle have shifts that only trained experts will see; but those falling outside the outer circle are noticeable.

Video

121

Xiaomi 13 Pro

162

Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
i
How Display Video score is composed

Our video attribute evaluates the Standard Dynamic Range (SDR) and High Dynamic Range (HDR10) video handling of each device in indoor and low-light conditions. We measure tone mapping, color gamut, brightness and contrast of the display. We perform perceptual analysis against our professional reference monitor (Sony BVM-HX310) to ensure that the rendering respects the artistic intent.

Learn more about how we test display video
Video brightness at 10% APL in the dark ( < 5 lux)


Video rendering in a low-light (0 lux) environment
Clockwise from top left: Xiaomi 13 Pro, Xiaomi 12 Pro, Google Pixel 7 Pro, Apple iPhone 14
(Photos for illustration only)

Clockwise from top left: Xiaomi 13 Pro, Xiaomi 12 Pro, Google Pixel 7 Pro, Apple iPhone 14
(Photos for illustration only)
Gamut coverage for video content
HDR10 Gamut coverage
SDR Gamut coverage
The primary colors are measured both in HDR10 and SDR. The extracted color gamut shows the extent of the color area that the device can render. To respect the artistic intent, the measured gamut should match the master color space of each video.

Motion

130

Xiaomi 13 Pro

155

Huawei P40 Pro
i
How Display Motion score is composed

The motion attribute evaluates the handling of dynamic contents. Frame drops, motion blur, and playback artifacts are scrutinized using games and videos.

Learn more about how we test display motion


Video frame drops
30 fps content
60 fps content
These long exposure photos present the number of frame irregularities in a 30-second video. A good performance shows a regular pattern (either a flat gray image or a pull-down pattern).

Touch

109

Xiaomi 13 Pro

165

OnePlus 9
i
How Display Touch score is composed

To evaluate touch, DXOMARK uses a touch robot and a high-speed camera to play and record a set of scenarios for smoothness, accuracy and response-time evaluation.

Learn more about how we test display touch
Average Touch Response Time Xiaomi 13 Pro
89 ms
Fast
Good
Bad
Slow
This response time test evaluates precisely the time elapsed between a single touch of the robot on the screen and the displayed action. This test is applied to activities that require a high reactivity, such as gaming.

Artifacts

130

Xiaomi 13 Pro

158

Vivo X Fold
i
How Display Artifacts score is composed

Evaluating artifacts means checking for the performance, image rendering and motion flaws that can affect the end-user experience. DXOMARK measures precisely the device’s reflectance and the presence of flicker, and assesses the impact of residual aliasing when playing video games, among other characteristics.

Learn more about how we test display motion
Average Reflectance (SCI) Xiaomi 13 Pro
4.7 %
Low
Good
Bad
High
Reflectance measurement (SCI)
Measurements above show the reflection of the device within the visible spectrum range (400 nm to 700 nm). It includes both diffuse and specular reflection.
Flicker Frequency Xiaomi 13 Pro
1920 Hz
Bad
Good
Bad
Great
Flicker comparison
This graph represents the frequencies of lighting variation; the highest peak gives the main flicker frequency.
Aliasing (closeup)
Xiaomi 13 Pro
(Photo for illustration only)

The post Xiaomi 13 Pro Display test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> https://www.dxomark.com/xiaomi-13-pro-display-test/feed/ 0 Xiaomi 13 Pro DISPLAY DISPLAY Xiaomi_13_Pro_readability_indoor Xiaomi_13_Pro_readability_sunlight Xiaomi_13_Pro_readability_uniformity Xiaomi_13_Pro_White_Point_CCT_vs_Ambient Xiaomi_13_Pro_color_indoor Xiaomi_13_Pro_color_sunlight Xiaomi_13_Pro_Color_Fidelity_Still_sRGB_1000lux_Zoom Xiaomi_13_Pro_Color_Fidelity_Still_P3_1000lux_Zoom Xiaomi_13_Pro_Scatter_Cono_White_P3_Zoom Xiaomi_13_Pro_video_lowlight_1 Xiaomi_13_Pro_video_lowlight_2 Xiaomi_13_Pro_Gamut_Video_HDR10 Xiaomi_13_Pro_Gamut_Video_SDR Xiaomi_13_Pro_motion_framedrops_fps_1 Xiaomi_13_Pro_motion_framedrops_fps_2 Xiaomi_13_Pro_artifacts_aliasing_full Samsung Galaxy S23+ Display test https://www.dxomark.com/samsung-galaxy-s23-plus-display-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/samsung-galaxy-s23-plus-display-test/#respond Tue, 28 Feb 2023 14:44:06 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=141755&preview=true&preview_id=141755 We put the Samsung Galaxy S23+ through our rigorous DXOMARK Display test suite to measure its performance across six criteria. In this test results, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases. The Samsung S23 series has some of the best-performing displays currently on the market. [...]

The post Samsung Galaxy S23+ Display test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> We put the Samsung Galaxy S23+ through our rigorous DXOMARK Display test suite to measure its performance across six criteria. In this test results, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

The Samsung S23 series has some of the best-performing displays currently on the market. Regardless of which S23 model you choose, the display experience will be quite similar and quite good, particularly in video, where every model achieved the same score. All models also exhibited “extra brightness” when “auto brightness” mode was deactivated on the device.

However, there were a few minor differences in the display performance of the 23+ that were noted during testing, some related to the model’s different screen dimensions as well as to the design and tuning of the display.

The S23+ finds itself between the basic S23 and the S23 Ultra when it comes to screen size. While the S23+ showed a good maximum brightness of 1500 nits when viewing photos on the screen (under 20.000 lux), this brightness, however, was 100 nits lower than the S23 and 270 nits lower than the S23 Ultra. This cost the S23+ some valuable points in readability. In the touch attribute, the 23+ outperformed the S23 Ultra as the smaller device was able to better manage corner touches. However, the S23+’s touch performance could not outperform the S23’s even slightly smaller screen in the touch attribute.

With many of the measurements being nearly identical to those of the Galaxy S23, we direct you to the full summary of the Samsung Galaxy S23 display test results.

Overview

Key display specifications:

  • 6.6 inches AMOLED, (~89.9% screen-to-body ratio)
  • Dimensions: 157.8 x 76.2 x 7.6 mm (6.21 x 3.00 x 0.30 inches)
  • Resolution: 2340 x 1080 pixels, (~393 ppi density)
  • Aspect ratio: 19.5:9
  • Refresh rate: 120 Hz

Scoring

Sub-scores and attributes included in the calculations of the global score.

Samsung Galaxy S23+ Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
146
display
Readability
155

160

Color
135

163

Video
162

Best

Motion
154

155

Touch
145

165

Artifacts
111

158

DISPLAY
Position in Global Ranking
6th
1. Honor Magic5 Pro
151
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
149
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
149
4. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
148
4. Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
148
6. Google Pixel 7 Pro
146
6. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
146
8. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
145
9. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
144
10. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
141
11. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
140
11. Google Pixel 7
140
11. Honor Magic4 Ultimate
140
11. Vivo X Fold
140
15. Apple iPhone 14
139
15. Oppo Find X5 Pro
139
17. Oppo Find X5
138
18. Apple iPhone 13
136
18. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
136
18. Xiaomi 13 Pro
136
21. Huawei P50 Pro
135
21. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
135
21. Xiaomi 13
135
24. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
134
24. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
134
24. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
134
27. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
133
27. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Snapdragon)
133
27. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
133
27. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
133
31. Vivo X70 Pro+
132
32. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
131
32. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
131
32. Sony Xperia 5 IV
131
32. Xiaomi 12T
131
36. Apple iPhone 13 mini
130
36. Google Pixel 6 Pro
130
36. Honor Magic4 Pro
130
36. Oppo Find N2 Flip
130
36. Realme GT 2 Pro
130
36. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
130
42. OnePlus 10 Pro
129
42. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
129
42. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
129
42. TCL 20 Pro 5G
129
42. Vivo X60 Pro+
129
42. Xiaomi 11T
129
48. Asus ROG Phone 6
128
48. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
128
48. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
128
51. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
127
51. OnePlus 9 Pro
127
51. OnePlus 8T
127
51. Xiaomi 12T Pro
127
55. Oppo Find X3 Pro
126
55. Sony Xperia 1 IV
126
57. Google Pixel 6a
125
57. Google Pixel 6
125
57. LG Wing
125
57. OnePlus 9
125
57. OnePlus 8 Pro
125
57. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
125
57. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
125
57. Vivo iQOO 9 Pro
125
57. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
125
57. Xiaomi 11T Pro
125
67. Honor 70
124
67. Oppo Reno8 5G
124
67. Oppo Find N
124
67. Sony Xperia 5 III
124
67. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
124
67. Xiaomi Mi 11
124
73. Apple iPhone 12 Pro
123
73. Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
123
73. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
123
73. Vivo X51 5G
123
77. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
122
77. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
122
77. Oppo Reno8 Pro 5G
122
77. Oppo Find X3 Neo
122
77. Sony Xperia 1 III
122
77. Xiaomi 12 Pro
122
83. Apple iPhone 12
120
83. Huawei P40 Pro
120
83. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
120
86. Realme GT 5G
118
86. Xiaomi 12
118
88. Oppo Reno5 Pro+ 5G
117
88. Vivo iQOO 7 Legend
117
88. Xiaomi Mi 11i
117
91. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
116
91. Asus ROG Phone 5
116
93. Oppo Reno5 Pro 5G
114
94. Asus Zenfone 8
113
95. Oppo Reno6 5G
112
96. Motorola Edge 20 Pro
111
96. Oppo Find X3 Lite
111
96. Realme GT Neo 2 5G
111
96. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
111
100. Oppo Find X5 Lite
110
100. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
110
102. Lenovo Legion Y90
109
102. OnePlus Nord 2 5G
109
104. Sony Xperia 5 II
108
105. POCO F4 GT
107
105. Xiaomi Redmi K50 Gaming
107
107. Nubia RedMagic 6 Pro
105
108. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
104
108. ZTE Axon 30 Ultra
104
110. Oppo Find X2 Pro
103
111. Google Pixel 5
101
112. Google Pixel 4 XL
100
112. Sony Xperia 10 IV
100
114. Microsoft Surface Duo
99
115. Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
98
116. Nubia RedMagic 7 Pro
97
117. Black Shark 4S Pro
95
117. Black Shark 4 Pro
95
117. Xiaomi Mi 10T Pro 5G
95
120. Black Shark 5 Pro
94
120. Vivo X80 Lite 5G
94
122. Asus ROG Phone 3
92
123. Fairphone 4
87
124. Crosscall Action-X5
77
125. Samsung Galaxy A22 5G
74
126. Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
69
127. Nokia 8.3 5G
65
128. Lenovo Legion Phone 2 Pro
60
129. Samsung Galaxy A12
53
130. Realme C21
52
DISPLAY
Position in Ultra-Premium Ranking
5th
1. Honor Magic5 Pro
151
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
149
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
149
4. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
148
5. Google Pixel 7 Pro
146
5. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
146
7. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
145
8. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
144
9. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
141
10. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
140
10. Honor Magic4 Ultimate
140
10. Vivo X Fold
140
13. Oppo Find X5 Pro
139
14. Oppo Find X5
138
15. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
136
15. Xiaomi 13 Pro
136
17. Huawei P50 Pro
135
17. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
135
19. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
134
19. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
134
19. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
134
22. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
133
22. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
133
24. Vivo X70 Pro+
132
25. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
131
25. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
131
25. Sony Xperia 5 IV
131
28. Google Pixel 6 Pro
130
28. Honor Magic4 Pro
130
28. Oppo Find N2 Flip
130
31. OnePlus 10 Pro
129
31. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
129
31. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
129
31. Vivo X60 Pro+
129
35. Asus ROG Phone 6
128
35. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
128
35. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
128
38. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
127
38. OnePlus 9 Pro
127
40. Oppo Find X3 Pro
126
40. Sony Xperia 1 IV
126
42. LG Wing
125
42. OnePlus 8 Pro
125
42. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
125
45. Oppo Find N
124
45. Sony Xperia 5 III
124
45. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
124
48. Apple iPhone 12 Pro
123
48. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
123
50. Sony Xperia 1 III
122
50. Xiaomi 12 Pro
122
52. Huawei P40 Pro
120
53. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
116
54. Sony Xperia 5 II
108
55. Oppo Find X2 Pro
103
56. Google Pixel 4 XL
100
57. Microsoft Surface Duo
99
58. Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
98
59. Asus ROG Phone 3
92
60. Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
69

Pros

  • Good readability in most lighting conditions
  • Very good video experience overall
  • Excellent uniformity

Cons

  • Low flicker frequency and too-high brightness for night reading
  • Under sunlight, colorful content lacks nuances
  • Aliasing is visible when playing video games
Brightness under various lighting conditions
Contrast under various lighting conditions
Luminance uniformity measurement

This graph shows the uniformity of the display with a 20% gray pattern. The more visible the green color, the more uniform the display.

The post Samsung Galaxy S23+ Display test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> https://www.dxomark.com/samsung-galaxy-s23-plus-display-test/feed/ 0 Samsung Galaxy S23+ Best DISPLAY DISPLAY Samsung_Galaxy_S23_Plus_readability_uniformity Samsung Galaxy S23 Display test https://www.dxomark.com/samsung-galaxy-s23-display-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/samsung-galaxy-s23-display-test/#respond Tue, 28 Feb 2023 14:41:09 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=141665&preview=true&preview_id=141665 We put the Samsung Galaxy S23 through our rigorous DXOMARK Display test suite to measure its performance across six criteria. In this test results, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases. Overview Key display specifications: 6.1 inches AMOLED, (~88.5% screen-to-body ratio) Dimensions: 146.3 x 70.9 [...]

The post Samsung Galaxy S23 Display test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> We put the Samsung Galaxy S23 through our rigorous DXOMARK Display test suite to measure its performance across six criteria. In this test results, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview

Key display specifications:

  • 6.1 inches AMOLED, (~88.5% screen-to-body ratio)
  • Dimensions: 146.3 x 70.9 x 7.6 mm (5.76 x 2.79 x 0.30 inches)
  • Resolution: 1080 x 2340 pixels, (~425 ppi density)
  • Aspect ratio: 19.5:9
  • Refresh rate: 120 Hz

Scoring

Sub-scores and attributes included in the calculations of the global score.

Samsung Galaxy S23 Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
148
display
Readability
158

160

Color
135

163

Video
162

Best

Motion
154

155

Touch
155

165

Artifacts
109

158

DISPLAY
Position in Global Ranking
4th
1. Honor Magic5 Pro
151
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
149
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
149
4. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
148
4. Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
148
6. Google Pixel 7 Pro
146
6. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
146
8. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
145
9. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
144
10. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
141
11. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
140
11. Google Pixel 7
140
11. Honor Magic4 Ultimate
140
11. Vivo X Fold
140
15. Apple iPhone 14
139
15. Oppo Find X5 Pro
139
17. Oppo Find X5
138
18. Apple iPhone 13
136
18. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
136
18. Xiaomi 13 Pro
136
21. Huawei P50 Pro
135
21. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
135
21. Xiaomi 13
135
24. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
134
24. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
134
24. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
134
27. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
133
27. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Snapdragon)
133
27. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
133
27. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
133
31. Vivo X70 Pro+
132
32. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
131
32. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
131
32. Sony Xperia 5 IV
131
32. Xiaomi 12T
131
36. Apple iPhone 13 mini
130
36. Google Pixel 6 Pro
130
36. Honor Magic4 Pro
130
36. Oppo Find N2 Flip
130
36. Realme GT 2 Pro
130
36. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
130
42. OnePlus 10 Pro
129
42. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
129
42. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
129
42. TCL 20 Pro 5G
129
42. Vivo X60 Pro+
129
42. Xiaomi 11T
129
48. Asus ROG Phone 6
128
48. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
128
48. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
128
51. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
127
51. OnePlus 9 Pro
127
51. OnePlus 8T
127
51. Xiaomi 12T Pro
127
55. Oppo Find X3 Pro
126
55. Sony Xperia 1 IV
126
57. Google Pixel 6a
125
57. Google Pixel 6
125
57. LG Wing
125
57. OnePlus 9
125
57. OnePlus 8 Pro
125
57. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
125
57. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
125
57. Vivo iQOO 9 Pro
125
57. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
125
57. Xiaomi 11T Pro
125
67. Honor 70
124
67. Oppo Reno8 5G
124
67. Oppo Find N
124
67. Sony Xperia 5 III
124
67. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
124
67. Xiaomi Mi 11
124
73. Apple iPhone 12 Pro
123
73. Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
123
73. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
123
73. Vivo X51 5G
123
77. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
122
77. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
122
77. Oppo Reno8 Pro 5G
122
77. Oppo Find X3 Neo
122
77. Sony Xperia 1 III
122
77. Xiaomi 12 Pro
122
83. Apple iPhone 12
120
83. Huawei P40 Pro
120
83. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
120
86. Realme GT 5G
118
86. Xiaomi 12
118
88. Oppo Reno5 Pro+ 5G
117
88. Vivo iQOO 7 Legend
117
88. Xiaomi Mi 11i
117
91. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
116
91. Asus ROG Phone 5
116
93. Oppo Reno5 Pro 5G
114
94. Asus Zenfone 8
113
95. Oppo Reno6 5G
112
96. Motorola Edge 20 Pro
111
96. Oppo Find X3 Lite
111
96. Realme GT Neo 2 5G
111
96. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
111
100. Oppo Find X5 Lite
110
100. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
110
102. Lenovo Legion Y90
109
102. OnePlus Nord 2 5G
109
104. Sony Xperia 5 II
108
105. POCO F4 GT
107
105. Xiaomi Redmi K50 Gaming
107
107. Nubia RedMagic 6 Pro
105
108. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
104
108. ZTE Axon 30 Ultra
104
110. Oppo Find X2 Pro
103
111. Google Pixel 5
101
112. Google Pixel 4 XL
100
112. Sony Xperia 10 IV
100
114. Microsoft Surface Duo
99
115. Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
98
116. Nubia RedMagic 7 Pro
97
117. Black Shark 4S Pro
95
117. Black Shark 4 Pro
95
117. Xiaomi Mi 10T Pro 5G
95
120. Black Shark 5 Pro
94
120. Vivo X80 Lite 5G
94
122. Asus ROG Phone 3
92
123. Fairphone 4
87
124. Crosscall Action-X5
77
125. Samsung Galaxy A22 5G
74
126. Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
69
127. Nokia 8.3 5G
65
128. Lenovo Legion Phone 2 Pro
60
129. Samsung Galaxy A12
53
130. Realme C21
52
DISPLAY
Position in Premium Ranking
1st
1. Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
148
2. Apple iPhone 14
139
3. Apple iPhone 13
136
4. Xiaomi 13
135
5. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Snapdragon)
133
5. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
133
7. Apple iPhone 13 mini
130
7. Realme GT 2 Pro
130
7. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
130
10. Xiaomi 12T Pro
127
11. OnePlus 9
125
11. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
125
11. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
125
11. Vivo iQOO 9 Pro
125
11. Xiaomi 11T Pro
125
16. Xiaomi Mi 11
124
17. Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
123
17. Vivo X51 5G
123
19. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
122
19. Oppo Reno8 Pro 5G
122
19. Oppo Find X3 Neo
122
22. Apple iPhone 12
120
23. Xiaomi 12
118
24. Oppo Reno5 Pro+ 5G
117
24. Xiaomi Mi 11i
117
26. Asus ROG Phone 5
116
27. Asus Zenfone 8
113
28. Motorola Edge 20 Pro
111
29. Lenovo Legion Y90
109
30. Nubia RedMagic 6 Pro
105
31. ZTE Axon 30 Ultra
104
32. Google Pixel 5
101
33. Nubia RedMagic 7 Pro
97
34. Black Shark 4S Pro
95
34. Black Shark 4 Pro
95
36. Black Shark 5 Pro
94
37. Nokia 8.3 5G
65
38. Lenovo Legion Phone 2 Pro
60

Pros

  • Good readability in most lighting conditions
  • Very good video experience overall
  • Excellent uniformity

Cons

  • Low flicker frequency and too-high brightness for night reading
  • Under sunlight, colorful content lacks nuances
  • Aliasing is visible when playing video games

The Samsung S23 series has some of the best-performing displays currently on the market. Regardless of which S23-series model you choose, the display experience will be quite similar and quite good, particularly in video, where every model achieved the same score. All models also exhibited “extra brightness” when “auto brightness” mode was deactivated on the device.

However, there were a few minor differences in the display performance of the S23 that were noted during testing, some related to the model’s different screen dimensions as well as to the design and tuning of the display.

The S23 is the smallest screen in the S23 series, but its powerful performance earned it the same score as the S23 Ultra. The S23 showed a good brightness of 1,600 nits under 20,000 lux, outperforming the S23+ by 100 nits, and coming just under the S23 Ultra’s 1,770 nits.
The S23’s touch score outperformed both the S23 Ultra and S23+, helped by its smaller screen, which better-managed corner touches.

The S23’s performance showed that it doesn’t always take a larger screen to have a great display experience.

Test summary

About DXOMARK Display tests: For scoring and analysis in our smartphone and other display reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective and perceptual tests under controlled lab and real-life conditions. Note that we evaluate display attributes using only the device’s built-in display hardware and its still image (gallery) and video apps at their default settings. (For in-depth information about how we evaluate smartphone and other displays, check out our articles, “How DXOMARK tests display quality” and “A closer look at DXOMARK Display testing.”

The following section gathers key elements of our exhaustive tests and analyses performed in DXOMARK laboratories. Detailed performance evaluations under the form of reports are available upon request. Do not hesitate to contact us.

Readability

158

Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)

160

Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
i
How Display Readability score is composed

Readability evaluates how easily and comfortably users can read still content (photos & web) on the display under different real-life conditions. DXOMARK uses its Display Bench to recreate ambient light conditions ranging from total darkness to bright sunlight. In addition to laboratory tests, perceptual analysis is also made in real-life environments.

Learn more about how we test display readability
Brightness under various lighting conditions
Contrast under various lighting conditions
Readability in an indoor (1000 lux) environment

From left: Samsung Galaxy S23, Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos), Apple iPhone 14, Google Pixel 7 Pro
(Photos for illustration only)


Readability in a sunlight (>90 000 lux) environment
From left: Samsung Galaxy S23, Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos), Apple iPhone 14, Google Pixel 7 Pro
(Photos for illustration only)

Luminance uniformity measurement
This graph shows the uniformity of the display with a 20% gray pattern. The more visible the green color, the more uniform the display.

Color

135

Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)

163

Huawei Mate 50 Pro
i
How Display Color score is composed

The color attribute evaluates the capacity of the device to accurately reproduce colors. The measurements taken are for fidelity, white point color, and gamut coverage. We perform color evaluations for different lighting conditions to see how well the device can manage color in the surrounding environment. Colors are measured using a spectrophotometer in a controlled lighting environment. Perceptual analysis of color rendering is against the reference pattern displayed on a calibrated professional monitor.

Learn more about how we test display color
White point under D65 illuminant at 1000 lux


Color rendering indoors (1000 lux)
Clockwise from top left: Samsung Galaxy S23, Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos), Apple iPhone 14, Google Pixel 7 Pro
(Photos for illustration only)


Color rendering in sunlight (>90 000 lux)
Clockwise from top left: Samsung Galaxy S23, Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos), Apple iPhone 14, Google Pixel 7 Pro
(Photos for illustration only)
Color fidelity measurements
Samsung Galaxy S23, color fidelity at 1000 lux in the sRGB color space
Samsung Galaxy S23, color fidelity at 1000 lux in the Display-P3 color space
Each arrow represents the color difference between a target color pattern (base of the arrow) and its actual measurement (tip of the arrow). The longer the arrow, the more visible the color difference is. If the arrow stays within the circle, the color difference will be visible only to trained eyes.
Color behavior on angle
This graph shows the color shift when the screen is at an angle. Each dot represents a measurement at a particular angle. Dots inside the inner circle exhibit no color shift in angle; those between the inner and outer circle have shifts that only trained experts will see; but those falling outside the outer circle are noticeable.
Color shift on angle

From left: Samsung Galaxy S23, Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos), Apple iPhone 14, Google Pixel 7 Pro
(Photos for illustration only)

Video

162

Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)

Best

i
How Display Video score is composed

Our video attribute evaluates the Standard Dynamic Range (SDR) and High Dynamic Range (HDR10) video handling of each device in indoor and low-light conditions. We measure tone mapping, color gamut, brightness and contrast of the display. We perform perceptual analysis against our professional reference monitor (Sony BVM-HX310) to ensure that the rendering respects the artistic intent.

Learn more about how we test display video
Video brightness at 10% APL in the dark ( < 5 lux)


Video rendering in a low-light (0 lux) environment
Clockwise from top left: Samsung Galaxy S23, Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos), Apple iPhone 14, Google Pixel 7 Pro
(Photos for illustration only)

Clockwise from top left: Samsung Galaxy S23, Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos), Apple iPhone 14, Google Pixel 7 Pro
(Photos for illustration only)
Gamut coverage for video content
HDR10 Gamut coverage
SDR Gamut coverage
The primary colors are measured both in HDR10 and SDR. The extracted color gamut shows the extent of the color area that the device can render. To respect the artistic intent, the measured gamut should match the master color space of each video.

Motion

154

Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)

155

Huawei P40 Pro
i
How Display Motion score is composed

The motion attribute evaluates the handling of dynamic contents. Frame drops, motion blur, and playback artifacts are scrutinized using games and videos.

Learn more about how we test display motion


Video frame drops
30 fps content
60 fps content
These long exposure photos present the number of frame irregularities in a 30-second video. A good performance shows a regular pattern (either a flat gray image or a pull-down pattern).

Touch

155

Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)

165

OnePlus 9
i
How Display Touch score is composed

To evaluate touch, DXOMARK uses a touch robot and a high-speed camera to play and record a set of scenarios for smoothness, accuracy and response-time evaluation.

Learn more about how we test display touch
Average Touch Response Time Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
62 ms
Fast
Good
Bad
Slow
This response time test evaluates precisely the time elapsed between a single touch of the robot on the screen and the displayed action. This test is applied to activities that require a high reactivity, such as gaming.

Artifacts

109

Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)

158

Vivo X Fold
i
How Display Artifacts score is composed

Evaluating artifacts means checking for the performance, image rendering and motion flaws that can affect the end-user experience. DXOMARK measures precisely the device’s reflectance and the presence of flicker, and assesses the impact of residual aliasing when playing video games, among other characteristics.

Learn more about how we test display motion
Average Reflectance (SCI) Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
4.8 %
Low
Good
Bad
High
Reflectance measurement (SCI)
Measurements above show the reflection of the device within the visible spectrum range (400 nm to 700 nm). It includes both diffuse and specular reflection.
Flicker Frequency Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
240 Hz
Bad
Good
Bad
Great
Flicker comparison
This graph represents the frequencies of lighting variation; the highest peak gives the main flicker frequency.
Aliasing (closeup)
Samsung Galaxy S23
(Photo for illustration only)

The post Samsung Galaxy S23 Display test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> https://www.dxomark.com/samsung-galaxy-s23-display-test/feed/ 0 Samsung Galaxy S23 Best DISPLAY DISPLAY Samsung_Galaxy_S23_readability_indoor Samsung_Galaxy_S23_readability_sunlight Samsung_Galaxy_S23_readability_uniformity Samsung_Galaxy_S23_White_Point_CCT_vs_Ambient Samsung_Galaxy_S23_color_indoor Samsung_Galaxy_S23_color_sunlight Samsung_Galaxy_S23_Color_Fidelity_Still_sRGB_1000lux_Zoom Samsung_Galaxy_S23_Color_Fidelity_Still_P3_1000lux_Zoom Samsung_Galaxy_S23_Scatter_Cono_White_P3_Zoom Samsung_Galaxy_S23_color_angle_1 Samsung_Galaxy_S23_color_angle_2 Best Samsung_Galaxy_S23_video_lowlight_1 Samsung_Galaxy_S23_video_lowlight_2 Samsung_Galaxy_S23_Gamut_Video_HDR10 Samsung_Galaxy_S23_Gamut_Video_SDR Samsung_Galaxy_S23_motion_framedrops_fps_1 Samsung_Galaxy_S23_motion_framedrops_fps_2 Samsung_Galaxy_S23_artifacts_aliasing_full Honor Magic5 Pro Display test https://www.dxomark.com/honor-magic5-pro-display-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/honor-magic5-pro-display-test/#respond Mon, 27 Feb 2023 12:55:27 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=140999&preview=true&preview_id=140999 We put the Honor Magic5 Pro through our rigorous DXOMARK Display test suite to measure its performance across six criteria. In this test results summary, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases. Overview Key display specifications: 6.81 inches OLED, (~91.5% screen-to-body ratio) Dimensions: 162.9mm x [...]

The post Honor Magic5 Pro Display test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> We put the Honor Magic5 Pro through our rigorous DXOMARK Display test suite to measure its performance across six criteria. In this test results summary, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview

Key display specifications:

  • 6.81 inches OLED, (~91.5% screen-to-body ratio)
  • Dimensions: 162.9mm x 76.7mm x 8.77 mm
  • Resolution: 1312 x 2848 pixels, (~461 ppi density)
  • Aspect ratio: 19.5:9
  • Refresh rate: 120 Hz

Scoring

Sub-scores and attributes included in the calculations of the global score.

Honor Magic5 Pro Honor Magic5 Pro
151
display
Readability
155

160

Color
148

163

Video
155

162

Motion
151

155

Touch
156

165

Artifacts
140

158

DISPLAY
Position in Global Ranking
1st
1. Honor Magic5 Pro
151
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
149
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
149
4. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
148
4. Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
148
6. Google Pixel 7 Pro
146
6. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
146
8. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
145
9. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
144
10. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
141
11. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
140
11. Google Pixel 7
140
11. Honor Magic4 Ultimate
140
11. Vivo X Fold
140
15. Apple iPhone 14
139
15. Oppo Find X5 Pro
139
17. Oppo Find X5
138
18. Apple iPhone 13
136
18. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
136
18. Xiaomi 13 Pro
136
21. Huawei P50 Pro
135
21. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
135
21. Xiaomi 13
135
24. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
134
24. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
134
24. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
134
27. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
133
27. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Snapdragon)
133
27. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
133
27. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
133
31. Vivo X70 Pro+
132
32. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
131
32. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
131
32. Sony Xperia 5 IV
131
32. Xiaomi 12T
131
36. Apple iPhone 13 mini
130
36. Google Pixel 6 Pro
130
36. Honor Magic4 Pro
130
36. Oppo Find N2 Flip
130
36. Realme GT 2 Pro
130
36. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
130
42. OnePlus 10 Pro
129
42. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
129
42. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
129
42. TCL 20 Pro 5G
129
42. Vivo X60 Pro+
129
42. Xiaomi 11T
129
48. Asus ROG Phone 6
128
48. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
128
48. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
128
51. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
127
51. OnePlus 9 Pro
127
51. OnePlus 8T
127
51. Xiaomi 12T Pro
127
55. Oppo Find X3 Pro
126
55. Sony Xperia 1 IV
126
57. Google Pixel 6a
125
57. Google Pixel 6
125
57. LG Wing
125
57. OnePlus 9
125
57. OnePlus 8 Pro
125
57. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
125
57. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
125
57. Vivo iQOO 9 Pro
125
57. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
125
57. Xiaomi 11T Pro
125
67. Honor 70
124
67. Oppo Reno8 5G
124
67. Oppo Find N
124
67. Sony Xperia 5 III
124
67. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
124
67. Xiaomi Mi 11
124
73. Apple iPhone 12 Pro
123
73. Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
123
73. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
123
73. Vivo X51 5G
123
77. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
122
77. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
122
77. Oppo Reno8 Pro 5G
122
77. Oppo Find X3 Neo
122
77. Sony Xperia 1 III
122
77. Xiaomi 12 Pro
122
83. Apple iPhone 12
120
83. Huawei P40 Pro
120
83. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
120
86. Realme GT 5G
118
86. Xiaomi 12
118
88. Oppo Reno5 Pro+ 5G
117
88. Vivo iQOO 7 Legend
117
88. Xiaomi Mi 11i
117
91. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
116
91. Asus ROG Phone 5
116
93. Oppo Reno5 Pro 5G
114
94. Asus Zenfone 8
113
95. Oppo Reno6 5G
112
96. Motorola Edge 20 Pro
111
96. Oppo Find X3 Lite
111
96. Realme GT Neo 2 5G
111
96. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
111
100. Oppo Find X5 Lite
110
100. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
110
102. Lenovo Legion Y90
109
102. OnePlus Nord 2 5G
109
104. Sony Xperia 5 II
108
105. POCO F4 GT
107
105. Xiaomi Redmi K50 Gaming
107
107. Nubia RedMagic 6 Pro
105
108. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
104
108. ZTE Axon 30 Ultra
104
110. Oppo Find X2 Pro
103
111. Google Pixel 5
101
112. Google Pixel 4 XL
100
112. Sony Xperia 10 IV
100
114. Microsoft Surface Duo
99
115. Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
98
116. Nubia RedMagic 7 Pro
97
117. Black Shark 4S Pro
95
117. Black Shark 4 Pro
95
117. Xiaomi Mi 10T Pro 5G
95
120. Black Shark 5 Pro
94
120. Vivo X80 Lite 5G
94
122. Asus ROG Phone 3
92
123. Fairphone 4
87
124. Crosscall Action-X5
77
125. Samsung Galaxy A22 5G
74
126. Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
69
127. Nokia 8.3 5G
65
128. Lenovo Legion Phone 2 Pro
60
129. Samsung Galaxy A12
53
130. Realme C21
52
DISPLAY
Position in Ultra-Premium Ranking
1st
1. Honor Magic5 Pro
151
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
149
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
149
4. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
148
5. Google Pixel 7 Pro
146
5. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
146
7. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
145
8. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
144
9. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
141
10. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
140
10. Honor Magic4 Ultimate
140
10. Vivo X Fold
140
13. Oppo Find X5 Pro
139
14. Oppo Find X5
138
15. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
136
15. Xiaomi 13 Pro
136
17. Huawei P50 Pro
135
17. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
135
19. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
134
19. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
134
19. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
134
22. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
133
22. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
133
24. Vivo X70 Pro+
132
25. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
131
25. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
131
25. Sony Xperia 5 IV
131
28. Google Pixel 6 Pro
130
28. Honor Magic4 Pro
130
28. Oppo Find N2 Flip
130
31. OnePlus 10 Pro
129
31. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
129
31. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
129
31. Vivo X60 Pro+
129
35. Asus ROG Phone 6
128
35. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
128
35. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
128
38. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
127
38. OnePlus 9 Pro
127
40. Oppo Find X3 Pro
126
40. Sony Xperia 1 IV
126
42. LG Wing
125
42. OnePlus 8 Pro
125
42. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
125
45. Oppo Find N
124
45. Sony Xperia 5 III
124
45. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
124
48. Apple iPhone 12 Pro
123
48. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
123
50. Sony Xperia 1 III
122
50. Xiaomi 12 Pro
122
52. Huawei P40 Pro
120
53. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
116
54. Sony Xperia 5 II
108
55. Oppo Find X2 Pro
103
56. Google Pixel 4 XL
100
57. Microsoft Surface Duo
99
58. Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
98
59. Asus ROG Phone 3
92
60. Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
69

Pros

  • Good display brightness in every lighting condition
  • Good picture rendering in indoor conditions
  • Accurate and fast touch reactivity
  • Flicker-free

Cons

  • High brightness mode (triggered in very bright environments) decreases the contrast in some areas.
  • Lack of smoothness when playing video games
  • Lack of uniformity in low light

With a score of 151, the Honor Magic5 Pro display has found its way to the top of the DXOMARK ranking thanks to its well-rounded and consistent performance in all the key attributes.

Although the Honor Magic5 Pro did not achieve the highest score in any of the attributes that go into calculating our Display overall score, it came very close in all categories, thereby achieving the kind of well-balanced performance DXOMARK looks for when ranking smartphones — and in this case, the Honor Magic5 Pro’s performance earned it the top spot in our Display database to date.

Taking a closer look at its performance, the new Honor device provided very good readability, with tuning that made it comfortable to see in all tested lighting conditions. The Honor might not have the highest peak brightness as the Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max, but the Magic5 Pro managed its color and contrast better than some of its rivals. Its color was better than that of two of its direct competitors, the Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max and the Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra; and although it fell behind the Samsung device for video, it nonetheless provided good HDR rendering. The Magic5 Pro’s touch was smooth, reactive, and accurate; and finally, it was flicker-free and ignored ghost touches.

Test summary

About DXOMARK Display tests: For scoring and analysis in our smartphone and other display reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective and perceptual tests under controlled lab and real-life conditions. Note that we evaluate display attributes using only the device’s built-in display hardware and its still image (gallery) and video apps at their default settings. (For in-depth information about how we evaluate smartphone and other displays, check out our articles, “How DXOMARK tests display quality” and “A closer look at DXOMARK Display testing.”

The following section gathers key elements of our exhaustive tests and analyses performed in DXOMARK laboratories. Detailed performance evaluations under the form of reports are available upon request. Do not hesitate to contact us.

Readability

155

Honor Magic5 Pro

160

Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
i
How Display Readability score is composed

Readability evaluates how easily and comfortably users can read still content (photos & web) on the display under different real-life conditions. DXOMARK uses its Display Bench to recreate ambient light conditions ranging from total darkness to bright sunlight. In addition to laboratory tests, perceptual analysis is also made in real-life environments.

Learn more about how we test display readability

In addition to smooth transitions when moving from one ambient light level to another, the Honor Magic5 Pro’s real strength is its well-tuned brightness in every lighting condition. Its weak points are a lack of uniformity in low light; a loss of brightness when viewed on angle; and that even though its high brightness mode (HBM) increases visibility, it does so at the expense of some detail rendering.

Brightness under various lighting conditions
Contrast under various lighting conditions

In low light, the Magic5 Pro’s tuning for auto brightness provided 8 nits of brightness to the display, compared with the iPhone Pro Max’s  2 nits and the Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra’s 10 nits.

Readability in a low-light (0 lux) environment
From left: Honor Magic 5 Pro, Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max, Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
(Photos for illustration only)

In the comparisons below, the Honor Magic5 Pro provided the most detailed rendering in lighting conditions that were equivalent to home lighting (250 lux).

Readability in an indoor (250 lux) environment
From left : Honor Magic 5 Pro, Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max, Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
(Photos for illustration only)

The normalized uniformity graphs below show that the Magic5 Pro has a slight dark line emanating horizontally from its notch, while the iPhone 14 Pro Max has a wide darker area at the bottom of the screen; the S23 Ultra is very uniform.

Luminance uniformity measurement
Honor Magic5 Pro
Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
This graph shows the uniformity of the display with a 20% gray pattern. The more visible the green color, the more uniform the display.

Color

148

Honor Magic5 Pro

163

Huawei Mate 50 Pro
i
How Display Color score is composed

The color attribute evaluates the capacity of the device to accurately reproduce colors. The measurements taken are for fidelity, white point color, and gamut coverage. We perform color evaluations for different lighting conditions to see how well the device can manage color in the surrounding environment. Colors are measured using a spectrophotometer in a controlled lighting environment. Perceptual analysis of color rendering is against the reference pattern displayed on a calibrated professional monitor.

Learn more about how we test display color

The Honor Magic5 Pro’s color rendering was mostly natural and faithful, whether under objective or perceptual evaluation,  but it was still somewhat behind the Huawei Mate 50 Pro, which holds the top score in color. However, the Magic5 Pro did outperform the iPhone 14 Pro Max and the S23 Ultra in this attribute.

The Honor Magic5 Pro had good color accuracy in indoor and low-light conditions, with a particularly natural rendering of skin tones. In outdoor conditions, the device’s HBM altered the colors a bit, especially on skin tones, but the color remained good on other content, especially when compared with the Samsung S23 Ultra, whose colors were often saturated.

The Honor and Samsung devices have a white point close to 7000K (analogous to bright cloudy skies), while the iPhone is closer to warmer D65 lighting (bright sunny skies) under 1000 lux conditions.

White point under D65 illuminant at 1000 lux

The illustrations below compare screens that were in lighting conditions equivalent to a home environment (250 lux). The Magic5 Pro’s (as well as the S23 Ultra’s) neutral skin-tone rendering becomes evident when shown next to the iPhone’s illustration, which shows an orange cast. The graph just below the illustrations are the screen measurements related to the faithfulness of skin tones. The Samsung and Honor arrows remained well-centered and within the circular boundaries, indicating the degree of their faithful and natural skin-tone rendering.

Color rendering in an indoor (250 lux) environment
From left: Honor Magic 5 Pro, Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max, Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
(Photos for illustration only)
Color rendering in an indoor (250 lux) environment
Color fidelity measurement comparison focused on skin tones in an indoor environment

Under sunlight, the Honor Magic5 Pro provides faithful color rendering, while the iPhone 14 Pro Max presented a yellow cast. The S23 Ultra occasionally presented artifacts on colorful content, with saturation obliterating fine details.

Color rendering in sunlight (>90 000 lux)
Clockwise from top left: Honor Magic5 Pro, Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max, Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
(Photos for illustration only)

The Honor Magic5 Pro is saturated in blue colors but favors a natural rendering for skin tones (as shown in the orange to pink color regions).

Color fidelity measurements
Honor Magic 5 Pro, color fidelity at 1000 lux in the sRGB color space
Honor Magic 5 Pro, color fidelity at 1000 lux in the Display-P3 color space
Each arrow represents the color difference between a target color pattern (base of the arrow) and its actual measurement (tip of the arrow). The longer the arrow, the more visible the color difference is. If the arrow stays within the circle, the color difference will be visible only to trained eyes.

The Honor Magic5 Pro took on a green cast when viewed on angle (45°), which can detract from good skin-tone rendering. However, at 30°, the Honor Magic5 Pro kept the color shift limited to the interior of the bigger circle, while the Samsung S23 Ultra crossed the bigger circle’s boundaries at around 20.

Color behavior on angle
Honor Magic5 Pro
Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
This graph shows the color shift when the screen is at an angle. Each dot represents a measurement at a particular angle. Dots inside the inner circle exhibit no color shift in angle; those between the inner and outer circle have shifts that only trained experts will see; but those falling outside the outer circle are noticeable.

Video

155

Honor Magic5 Pro

162

Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
i
How Display Video score is composed

Our video attribute evaluates the Standard Dynamic Range (SDR) and High Dynamic Range (HDR10) video handling of each device in indoor and low-light conditions. We measure tone mapping, color gamut, brightness and contrast of the display. We perform perceptual analysis against our professional reference monitor (Sony BVM-HX310) to ensure that the rendering respects the artistic intent.

Learn more about how we test display video
Video brightness at 10% APL in the dark ( < 5 lux)

Brightness and contrast were good when watching HDR10 videos on the Magic5 Pro. Although the Honor device’s HDR10 video rendering was close to that of the Samsung, one drawback for the Honor was that a visible green cast could impact the color rendering.

As shown in the picture below, HDR rendering was close to the Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra.

Video rendering in a low-light (0 lux) environment
Clockwise from top left: Honor Magic5 Pro, Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max, Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
(Photos for illustration only)

The Magic5 Pro adapted its video color space to content, as shown in the graphs below.

Gamut coverage for video content
HDR10 Gamut coverage
SDR Gamut coverage
The primary colors are measured both in HDR10 and SDR. The extracted color gamut shows the extent of the color area that the device can render. To respect the artistic intent, the measured gamut should match the master color space of each video.

Motion

151

Honor Magic5 Pro

155

Huawei P40 Pro
i
How Display Motion score is composed

The motion attribute evaluates the handling of dynamic contents. Frame drops, motion blur, and playback artifacts are scrutinized using games and videos.

Learn more about how we test display motion

The Magic5 Pro also performed well in DXOMARK’s tests for motion control, with very smooth video playback and immediate reactivity. Despite a few more frame drops than its two competitors, the Magic5 Pro’s performance was still very good.

Video frame drops at 24 fps
Honor Magic5 Pro
Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra

These long exposure photos present the number of frame irregularities in a 30-second video. A good performance shows a regular pattern (either a flat gray image or a pull-down pattern).

Touch

156

Honor Magic5 Pro

165

OnePlus 9
i
How Display Touch score is composed

To evaluate touch, DXOMARK uses a touch robot and a high-speed camera to play and record a set of scenarios for smoothness, accuracy and response-time evaluation.

Learn more about how we test display touch

The Magic5 Pro is smooth in the gallery app and when browsing the web, though it is not as smooth when playing video games. Touch is accurate across the whole screen, even in the corners, and its 70 ms response time is very similar to that of its competitors.

Average Touch Response Time Honor Magic5 Pro
70 ms
Fast
Good
Bad
Slow
This response time test evaluates precisely the time elapsed between a single touch of the robot on the screen and the displayed action. This test is applied to activities that require a high reactivity, such as gaming.

Artifacts

140

Honor Magic5 Pro

158

Vivo X Fold
i
How Display Artifacts score is composed

Evaluating artifacts means checking for the performance, image rendering and motion flaws that can affect the end-user experience. DXOMARK measures precisely the device’s reflectance and the presence of flicker, and assesses the impact of residual aliasing when playing video games, among other characteristics.

Learn more about how we test display motion

The Magic5 Pro’s display artifacts were very well controlled. The display did not reveal any relevant flicker, and the display did not react to ghost touches during testing. The reflectance ratio of the Honor Magic5 Pro, however, was standard.

Average Reflectance (SCI) Honor Magic5 Pro
4.5 %
Low
Good
Bad
High
Reflectance measurement (SCI)
Measurements above show the reflection of the device within the visible spectrum range (400 nm to 700 nm). It includes both diffuse and specular reflection.

The Honor Magic5 Pro was flicker-free, which is still rare among OLED displays, making the device more comfortable to use in low light.

As the graph below shows, the Magic5 Pro’s first relevant peak occurred at 1910 Hz, whereas the iPhone 14 Pro Max’s first relevant peak was at 480 Hz and the Galaxy S23 Ultra’s was at 240 Hz. While the Magic5 Pro’s display demonstrated some peaks just before 500 Hz, those peaks never went beyond -10 dB as they did for the iPhone and the Galaxy, and were not taken into account.

Flicker Frequency Honor Magic5 Pro
1910 Hz
Bad
Good
Bad
Great
Flicker comparison
This graph represents the frequencies of lighting variation; the highest peak gives the main flicker frequency.

The Magic5 Pro kept aliasing well under control, but it did not outperform the iPhone 14 Pro Max in this artifact.

Aliasing (closeup)
Honor Magic5 Pro
(Photos for illustration only)
Honor Magic5 Pro – Crop 1
Honor Magic5 Pro – Crop 2
Honor Magic5 Pro – Crop 3

The post Honor Magic5 Pro Display test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> https://www.dxomark.com/honor-magic5-pro-display-test/feed/ 0 Honor Magic5 Pro DISPLAY DISPLAY Honor_Magic5Pro_readability_lowlight Honor_Magic5Pro_readability_indoor Honor_Magic5Pro_readability_uniformity Honor_Magic5Pro_Uniformity_Comparison1 Honor_Magic5Pro_Uniformity_Comparison2 Honor_Magic5Pro_White_Point_CCT_vs_Ambient Honor_Magic5Pro_color_indoor Honor_Magic5Pro_Color_Fidelity_Still_sRGB_250lux_zoom Honor_Magic5Pro_color_sunlight Honor_Magic5Pro_Scatter_Cono_White_P3_Zoom Honor_Magic5Pro_Scatter_Cono_White_P3_Zoom_Comparison1 Honor_Magic5Pro_Scatter_Cono_White_P3_Zoom_Comparison2 Honor_Magic5Pro_video_lowlight_1 Honor_Magic5Pro_motion_framedrops_comparison_1 Honor_Magic5Pro_motion_framedrops_comparison_2 Honor_Magic5Pro_motion_framedrops_comparison_3 Honor_Magic5Pro_artifacts_aliasing_full Honor_Magic5Pro_artifacts_aliasing_crops_dut_1 Honor_Magic5Pro_artifacts_aliasing_crops_dut_2 Honor_Magic5Pro_artifacts_aliasing_crops_dut_3 Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra Display test https://www.dxomark.com/samsung-galaxy-s23-ultra-display-test/ https://www.dxomark.com/samsung-galaxy-s23-ultra-display-test/#respond Tue, 21 Feb 2023 15:29:57 +0000 https://www.dxomark.com/?p=140394&preview=true&preview_id=140394 We put the Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra through our rigorous DXOMARK Display test suite to measure its performance across six criteria. In this results summary, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases. Overview Key display specifications: 6.8 inches AMOLED, (~90.7% screen-to-body ratio) Dimensions: 163.4 x [...]

The post Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra Display test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> We put the Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra through our rigorous DXOMARK Display test suite to measure its performance across six criteria. In this results summary, we will break down how it fared in a variety of tests and several common use cases.

Overview

Key display specifications:

  • 6.8 inches AMOLED, (~90.7% screen-to-body ratio)
  • Dimensions: 163.4 x 78.1 x 8.9 mm (6.43 x 3.07 x 0.35 inches)
  • Resolution: 1440 x 3088 pixels, (~500 ppi density)
  • Aspect ratio: 19.3:9
  • Refresh rate: 120 Hz

Scoring

Sub-scores and attributes included in the calculations of the global score.

Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
148
display
Readability
159

160

Color
135

163

Video
162

Best

Motion
152

155

Touch
139

165

Artifacts
118

158

DISPLAY
Position in Global Ranking
4th
1. Honor Magic5 Pro
151
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
149
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
149
4. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
148
4. Samsung Galaxy S23 (Snapdragon)
148
6. Google Pixel 7 Pro
146
6. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
146
8. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
145
9. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
144
10. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
141
11. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
140
11. Google Pixel 7
140
11. Honor Magic4 Ultimate
140
11. Vivo X Fold
140
15. Apple iPhone 14
139
15. Oppo Find X5 Pro
139
17. Oppo Find X5
138
18. Apple iPhone 13
136
18. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
136
18. Xiaomi 13 Pro
136
21. Huawei P50 Pro
135
21. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
135
21. Xiaomi 13
135
24. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
134
24. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
134
24. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
134
27. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
133
27. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Snapdragon)
133
27. Samsung Galaxy S22 (Exynos)
133
27. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
133
31. Vivo X70 Pro+
132
32. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
131
32. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
131
32. Sony Xperia 5 IV
131
32. Xiaomi 12T
131
36. Apple iPhone 13 mini
130
36. Google Pixel 6 Pro
130
36. Honor Magic4 Pro
130
36. Oppo Find N2 Flip
130
36. Realme GT 2 Pro
130
36. Samsung Galaxy S21 FE 5G (Snapdragon)
130
42. OnePlus 10 Pro
129
42. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
129
42. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
129
42. TCL 20 Pro 5G
129
42. Vivo X60 Pro+
129
42. Xiaomi 11T
129
48. Asus ROG Phone 6
128
48. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
128
48. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
128
51. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
127
51. OnePlus 9 Pro
127
51. OnePlus 8T
127
51. Xiaomi 12T Pro
127
55. Oppo Find X3 Pro
126
55. Sony Xperia 1 IV
126
57. Google Pixel 6a
125
57. Google Pixel 6
125
57. LG Wing
125
57. OnePlus 9
125
57. OnePlus 8 Pro
125
57. Vivo X70 Pro (MediaTek)
125
57. Vivo X60 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
125
57. Vivo iQOO 9 Pro
125
57. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
125
57. Xiaomi 11T Pro
125
67. Honor 70
124
67. Oppo Reno8 5G
124
67. Oppo Find N
124
67. Sony Xperia 5 III
124
67. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
124
67. Xiaomi Mi 11
124
73. Apple iPhone 12 Pro
123
73. Oppo Reno6 Pro 5G (Snapdragon)
123
73. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
123
73. Vivo X51 5G
123
77. Apple iPhone SE (2022)
122
77. Motorola Edge 30 Pro
122
77. Oppo Reno8 Pro 5G
122
77. Oppo Find X3 Neo
122
77. Sony Xperia 1 III
122
77. Xiaomi 12 Pro
122
83. Apple iPhone 12
120
83. Huawei P40 Pro
120
83. Samsung Galaxy A54 5G
120
86. Realme GT 5G
118
86. Xiaomi 12
118
88. Oppo Reno5 Pro+ 5G
117
88. Vivo iQOO 7 Legend
117
88. Xiaomi Mi 11i
117
91. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
116
91. Asus ROG Phone 5
116
93. Oppo Reno5 Pro 5G
114
94. Asus Zenfone 8
113
95. Oppo Reno6 5G
112
96. Motorola Edge 20 Pro
111
96. Oppo Find X3 Lite
111
96. Realme GT Neo 2 5G
111
96. Samsung Galaxy A52 5G
111
100. Oppo Find X5 Lite
110
100. Samsung Galaxy A52s 5G
110
102. Lenovo Legion Y90
109
102. OnePlus Nord 2 5G
109
104. Sony Xperia 5 II
108
105. POCO F4 GT
107
105. Xiaomi Redmi K50 Gaming
107
107. Nubia RedMagic 6 Pro
105
108. Samsung Galaxy A53 5G
104
108. ZTE Axon 30 Ultra
104
110. Oppo Find X2 Pro
103
111. Google Pixel 5
101
112. Google Pixel 4 XL
100
112. Sony Xperia 10 IV
100
114. Microsoft Surface Duo
99
115. Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
98
116. Nubia RedMagic 7 Pro
97
117. Black Shark 4S Pro
95
117. Black Shark 4 Pro
95
117. Xiaomi Mi 10T Pro 5G
95
120. Black Shark 5 Pro
94
120. Vivo X80 Lite 5G
94
122. Asus ROG Phone 3
92
123. Fairphone 4
87
124. Crosscall Action-X5
77
125. Samsung Galaxy A22 5G
74
126. Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
69
127. Nokia 8.3 5G
65
128. Lenovo Legion Phone 2 Pro
60
129. Samsung Galaxy A12
53
130. Realme C21
52
DISPLAY
Position in Ultra-Premium Ranking
4th
1. Honor Magic5 Pro
151
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
149
2. Apple iPhone 14 Pro
149
4. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
148
5. Google Pixel 7 Pro
146
5. Samsung Galaxy S23 Plus (Snapdragon)
146
7. Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max
145
8. Apple iPhone 13 Pro
144
9. Huawei Mate 50 Pro
141
10. Apple iPhone 14 Plus
140
10. Honor Magic4 Ultimate
140
10. Vivo X Fold
140
13. Oppo Find X5 Pro
139
14. Oppo Find X5
138
15. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Snapdragon)
136
15. Xiaomi 13 Pro
136
17. Huawei P50 Pro
135
17. Samsung Galaxy S22+ (Exynos)
135
19. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip4
134
19. Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra (Exynos)
134
19. Vivo X80 Pro (MediaTek)
134
22. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold4
133
22. Vivo X80 Pro (Snapdragon)
133
24. Vivo X70 Pro+
132
25. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
131
25. Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
131
25. Sony Xperia 5 IV
131
28. Google Pixel 6 Pro
130
28. Honor Magic4 Pro
130
28. Oppo Find N2 Flip
130
31. OnePlus 10 Pro
129
31. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold3 5G
129
31. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Snapdragon)
129
31. Vivo X60 Pro+
129
35. Asus ROG Phone 6
128
35. Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G
128
35. Samsung Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
128
38. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max
127
38. OnePlus 9 Pro
127
40. Oppo Find X3 Pro
126
40. Sony Xperia 1 IV
126
42. LG Wing
125
42. OnePlus 8 Pro
125
42. Xiaomi 12S Ultra
125
45. Oppo Find N
124
45. Sony Xperia 5 III
124
45. Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra
124
48. Apple iPhone 12 Pro
123
48. Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (Exynos)
123
50. Sony Xperia 1 III
122
50. Xiaomi 12 Pro
122
52. Huawei P40 Pro
120
53. Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max
116
54. Sony Xperia 5 II
108
55. Oppo Find X2 Pro
103
56. Google Pixel 4 XL
100
57. Microsoft Surface Duo
99
58. Xiaomi Mi 10 Ultra
98
59. Asus ROG Phone 3
92
60. Xiaomi Black Shark 3 Pro
69

Pros

  • Good readability in most lighting conditions
  • Very good video experience overall
  • Good color fidelity in most lighting conditions

Cons

  • Low flicker frequency and too-high brightness for night reading
  • Under sunlight, colorful content lacks nuances
  • Details and brightness lacking in indoor lighting conditions

The Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra turned in an excellent overall display performance, showing some marked improvements over its predecessor. Both the S23 Ultra and the S22 Ultra continue to lead the pack in providing the best user experience for video, with a refresh rate that adapts itself to the frame rate of the content being played.

Despite good progress in motion control and to a lesser degree, in color rendering, the S23 Ultra remained essentially at the same level as the S22 Ultra for readability, and showed the same visible aliasing as the S22 Ultra when playing video games.

Please note that all comparisons with the S22 Ultra in this review were made with the Snapdragon version of that device. The S23 Ultra comes only with a Snapdragon processor; unlike previous generations, there is no Exynos-powered version.

Test summary

About DXOMARK Display tests: For scoring and analysis in our smartphone and other display reviews, DXOMARK engineers perform a variety of objective and perceptual tests under controlled lab and real-life conditions. Note that we evaluate display attributes using only the device’s built-in display hardware and its still image (gallery) and video apps at their default settings. (For in-depth information about how we evaluate smartphone and other displays, check out our articles, “How DXOMARK tests display quality” and “A closer look at DXOMARK Display testing.”

The following section gathers key elements of our exhaustive tests and analyses performed in DXOMARK laboratories. Detailed performance evaluations under the form of reports are available upon request. Do not hesitate to contact us.

Readability

159

Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)

160

Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
i
How Display Readability score is composed

Readability evaluates how easily and comfortably users can read still content (photos & web) on the display under different real-life conditions. DXOMARK uses its Display Bench to recreate ambient light conditions ranging from total darkness to bright sunlight. In addition to laboratory tests, perceptual analysis is also made in real-life environments.

Learn more about how we test display readability

Scoring just slightly better than its S22 Ultra predecessor, the Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra came close to the very best devices for readability. The S23 Ultra offers an “Extra Brightness” mode that allows users to manually boost the maximum brightness. Without the option activated, max brightness is 600 nits; with the option on, the maximum brightness is 1050 nits.

The S23 Ultra had good outdoor readability, but was not better than the older S22 Ultra in this regard. Further, the newer device was slightly behind the S22 Ultra in terms of contrast and details in indoor conditions, as seen below in the collar of the model’s coat.

Brightness under various lighting conditions

In the illustrations below, both Samsung devices show slightly less contrast than the iPhone 14 Pro Max.

Readability in an indoor (1000 lux) environment

From left: Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra, Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra, Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max, Google Pixel 7 Pro
(Photos for illustration only)

In shady lighting conditions, the S23 Ultra lacked enough brightness and details to be clearly readable.

Readability in an outdoor (20 000 lux) environment
From left: Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra, Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra , Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max, Google Pixel 7 Pro
(Photos for illustration only)

Under sunlight, the powerful Samsung display in High Brightness Mode showed good readability, with even the darkest details enhanced enough for users to see. However, color nuances were lost. Moreover, at 1910 nits, the boost for the S23 Ultra was less bright than for the S22 Ultra (1990 nits).

Readability in a sunlit (>90 000 lux) environment
From left: Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra, Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra, Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max, Google Pixel 7 Pro
(Photos for illustration only)

The Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra screen showed excellent brightness and color uniformity.

Luminance uniformity measurement
This graph shows the uniformity of the display with a 20% gray pattern. The more visible the green color, the more uniform the display.

Color

135

Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)

163

Huawei Mate 50 Pro
i
How Display Color score is composed

The color attribute evaluates the capacity of the device to accurately reproduce colors. The measurements taken are for fidelity, white point color, and gamut coverage. We perform color evaluations for different lighting conditions to see how well the device can manage color in the surrounding environment. Colors are measured using a spectrophotometer in a controlled lighting environment. Perceptual analysis of color rendering is against the reference pattern displayed on a calibrated professional monitor.

Learn more about how we test display color

As with Samsung devices generally, the S23 Ultra’s color was saturated, except for skin tone colors (see color fidelity graph), as users would find such saturation disturbing, given how sensitive human eyes are in this regard. Overall, the S23 Ultra was less saturated than its predecessor.

The S23 Ultra managed the rendering better than the S22 series, but while the S22 Ultra had an orange cast, the S23 Ultra had a green cast, which is worse for skin-tone rendering. Despite the green cast, color fidelity was good.

Like most devices, the S23 Ultra does not adapt to the ambient lighting; its white point is set to a D70 illuminant (7000 Kelvin).

White point under D65 illuminant at 1000 lux

On the following illustrations, the S23 Ultra’s color under intense lighting was oversaturated, but it was still a slight improvement over its predecessor’s color, even though it was not a full correction.

Color rendering in sunlight (>90 000 lux)
Clockwise from top left: Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra, Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra, Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max, Google Pixel 7 Pro
(Photos for illustration only)

The Samsung S23 Ultra tended to oversaturate colors while maintaining the same hue. However, skin tones had a natural rendering.

Color fidelity measurements
Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra, color fidelity at 1000 lux in the sRGB color space
Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra, color fidelity at 1000 lux in the Display-P3 color space
Each arrow represents the color difference between a target color pattern (base of the arrow) and its actual measurement (tip of the arrow). The longer the arrow, the more visible the color difference is. If the arrow stays within the circle, the color difference will be visible only to trained eyes.

At an angle, the white point takes a blue to green cast.

Color behavior on angle
This graph shows the color shift when the screen is at an angle. Each dot represents a measurement at a particular angle. Dots inside the inner circle exhibit no color shift in angle; those between the inner and outer circle have shifts that only trained experts will see; but those falling outside the outer circle are noticeable.


Color shift on angle

From left: Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra, Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra, Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max, Google Pixel 7 Pro
(Photos for illustration only)

Video

162

Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)

Best

i
How Display Video score is composed

Our video attribute evaluates the Standard Dynamic Range (SDR) and High Dynamic Range (HDR10) video handling of each device in indoor and low-light conditions. We measure tone mapping, color gamut, brightness and contrast of the display. We perform perceptual analysis against our professional reference monitor (Sony BVM-HX310) to ensure that the rendering respects the artistic intent.

Learn more about how we test display video

Among all smartphones in the DXOMARK database, the latest Samsung device continues to provide the best video experience for end users, with good brightness and pleasant colors. The S23 Ultra is 10 nits brighter in low light than the S22 Ultra, helping the more recent device provide a more realistic appearance to HDR scenes.

Video brightness at 10% APL in the dark ( < 5 lux)

Video rendering in a low-light (0 lux) environment
Clockwise from top left: Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra, Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra, Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max, Google Pixel 7 Pro
(Photos for illustration only)

Clockwise from top left: Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra, Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra, Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max, Google Pixel 7 Pro
(Photos for illustration only)
Gamut coverage for video content
HDR10 gamut coverage
SDR gamut coverage
The primary colors are measured both in HDR10 and SDR. The extracted color gamut shows the extent of the color area that the device can render. To respect the artistic intent, the measured gamut should match the master color space of each video.

Motion

152

Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)

155

Huawei P40 Pro
i
How Display Motion score is composed

The motion attribute evaluates the handling of dynamic contents. Frame drops, motion blur, and playback artifacts are scrutinized using games and videos.

Learn more about how we test display motion

The Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra managed frame drops noticeably better than the S22 Ultra, as well as providing improved reactivity when using the interface to navigate in a video.

Video frame drops
30 fps content
60 fps content
These long exposure photos present the number of frame irregularities in a 30-second video. A good performance shows a regular pattern (either a flat gray image or a pull-down pattern).

The S23 Ultra also adapted its frame rate depending on the video content. We played a 24 fps, 30 fps and 60 fps white video through the YouTube app and measured the time response of the device (shown below). We noticed that the S23 Ultra refresh rate matchef the displayed video frame rate.

Refresh rate

Touch

139

Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)

165

OnePlus 9
i
How Display Touch score is composed

To evaluate touch, DXOMARK uses a touch robot and a high-speed camera to play and record a set of scenarios for smoothness, accuracy and response-time evaluation.

Learn more about how we test display touch

Touch is where the S23 Ultra made strong improvements, achieving greater smoothness and accuracy.

Average Touch Response Time Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
70 ms
Fast
Good
Bad
Slow
This response time test evaluates precisely the time elapsed between a single touch of the robot on the screen and the displayed action. This test is applied to activities that require a high reactivity, such as gaming.

Artifacts

118

Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)

158

Vivo X Fold
i
How Display Artifacts score is composed

Evaluating artifacts means checking for the performance, image rendering and motion flaws that can affect the end-user experience. DXOMARK measures precisely the device’s reflectance and the presence of flicker, and assesses the impact of residual aliasing when playing video games, among other characteristics.

Learn more about how we test display motion

The S23 Ultra had the same problem with flicker and showed visible aliasing as the S22 Ultra (albeit slightly improved); further, it handles judder a bit better than the older phone.

Average Reflectance (SCI) Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
4.9 %
Low
Good
Bad
High
Reflectance measurement (SCI)
Measurements above show the reflection of the device within the visible spectrum range (400 nm to 700 nm). It includes both diffuse and specular reflection.
Flicker Frequency Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra (Snapdragon)
240 Hz
Bad
Good
Bad
Great
Flicker comparison
This graph represents the frequencies of lighting variation; the highest peak gives the main flicker frequency.
Aliasing (closeup)
Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
(Photos for illustration only)

Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra – Crop 1
Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra – Crop 2
Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra – Crop 3

The post Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra Display test appeared first on DXOMARK.

]]> https://www.dxomark.com/samsung-galaxy-s23-ultra-display-test/feed/ 0 Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra Best DISPLAY DISPLAY Samsung_Galaxy_S23_Ultra_readability_indoor Samsung_Galaxy_S23_Ultra_readability_shade Samsung_Galaxy_S23_Ultra_readability_sunlight Samsung_Galaxy_S23_Ultra_readability_uniformity Samsung_Galaxy_S23_Ultra_White_Point_CCT_vs_Ambient Samsung_Galaxy_S23_Ultra_color_sunlight Samsung_Galaxy_S23_Ultra_Color_Fidelity_Still_sRGB_1000lux_Zoom Samsung_Galaxy_S23_Ultra_Color_Fidelity_Still_P3_1000lux_Zoom Samsung_Galaxy_S23_Ultra_Scatter_Cono_White_P3_Zoom Samsung_Galaxy_S23_Ultra_color_angle_1 Samsung_Galaxy_S23_Ultra_color_angle_2 Best Samsung_Galaxy_S23_Ultra_video_lowlight_1 Samsung_Galaxy_S23_Ultra_video_lowlight_2 Samsung_Galaxy_S23_Ultra_Gamut_Video_HDR10 Samsung_Galaxy_S23_Ultra_Gamut_Video_SDR Samsung_Galaxy_S23_Ultra_motion_framedrops_fps_1 Samsung_Galaxy_S23_Ultra_motion_framedrops_fps_2 MicrosoftTeams-image (29) Samsung_Galaxy_S23_Ultra_artifacts_aliasing_full Samsung_Galaxy_S23_Ultra_artifacts_aliasing_crops_dut_1 Samsung_Galaxy_S23_Ultra_artifacts_aliasing_crops_dut_2 Samsung_Galaxy_S23_Ultra_artifacts_aliasing_crops_dut_3