Notebookcheck

Recensione breve dello Smartphone Maze Alpha X

Florian Schaar, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, Felicitas Krohn (traduzione a cura di G. De Luca), 02/25/2018

Economico, senza bordi, buono? Il Maze Alpha X segue il recente Maze Alpha e costa 50 Euro (~$62) in più. All'esterno lo schermo è cresciuto di 240 pixels in verticale e la parte senza pixel è conseguentemente diminuita. Vedremo i punti di forza ed i punti deboli in questa recensione.

Maze Alpha X
Processore
Mediatek Helio P25
Scheda grafica
ARM Mali-T880 MP2
Memoria
6144 MB 
Schermo
6 pollici 2:1, 2160 x 1080 pixel 402 PPI, 10-punti, IPS, lucido: si
Harddisk
64 GB eMMC Flash, 64 GB 
, 49.5 GB libera
Porte di connessione
1 USB 2.0, Lettore schede: microSD, 1 Lettore impronte digitali, NFC, Sensore luminosità, Sensori: Accelerometro, magnetometro, giroscopio, sensore prossimità
Rete
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 4.1, GSM 1800MHz, 1900MHz, 850MHz, 900MHz, WCDMA: 2100MHz, 900MHz, LTE FDD: 2100MHz, 800MHz, 1800MHz, 2600MHz, 900MHz, Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Dimensioni
altezza x larghezza x profondità (in mm): 8.1 x 156.4 x 74.6
Batteria
3900 mAh ioni di litio
Sistema Operativo
Android 7.0 Nougat
Camera
Fotocamera Principale: 13 MPix fotocamera da 13 MP
Fotocamera Secondaria: 8 MPix fotocamera frontale
Altre caratteristiche
Casse: 1, Illuminazione Tastiera: si, caricatore e cavo, 12 Mesi Garanzia, senza ventola
Peso
210 gr, Alimentazione: 61 gr
Prezzo
249 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Sizes Comparison

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Honor 9
Mali-G71 MP8, Kirin 960, 64 GB eMMC Flash
283 MBit/s ∼100% +242%
Doogee BL5000
Mali-T860 MP2, MT6750, 64 GB eMMC Flash
101 MBit/s ∼36% +22%
Maze Alpha X
Mali-T880 MP2, Helio P25, 64 GB eMMC Flash
82.8 MBit/s ∼29%
Doogee Mix
Mali-T880 MP2, Helio P25, 64 GB eMMC Flash
50.5 MBit/s ∼18% -39%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
Mali-T830 MP2, Kirin 659, 64 GB eMMC Flash
41.9 MBit/s ∼15% -49%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Honor 9
Mali-G71 MP8, Kirin 960, 64 GB eMMC Flash
140 MBit/s ∼100% +47%
Doogee Mix
Mali-T880 MP2, Helio P25, 64 GB eMMC Flash
107 MBit/s ∼76% +13%
Maze Alpha X
Mali-T880 MP2, Helio P25, 64 GB eMMC Flash
95.1 MBit/s ∼68%
Doogee BL5000
Mali-T860 MP2, MT6750, 64 GB eMMC Flash
90.7 MBit/s ∼65% -5%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
Mali-T830 MP2, Kirin 659, 64 GB eMMC Flash
53.3 MBit/s ∼38% -44%
Test track with the Alpha X
Test track with the Alpha X
Test track with the Alpha X
Test track with the Alpha X
Test track with the Alpha X
Test track with the Alpha X
Test track with the Garmin Edge 500
Test track with the Garmin Edge 500
Test track with the Garmin Edge 500
Test track with the Garmin Edge 500
Test track with the Garmin Edge 500
Test track with the Garmin Edge 500

Confronto immagini

Scegliete una scena e navigate nella prima immagine. Un click cambia lo zoom. Un click sulla immagine zoommata apre quella originale in una nuova finestra. La prima immagine mostra la fotografia ridimensionata del dispositivo di test.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
click per caricare le immagini
Testing the screen response with Gismarts Real Piano
Testing the screen response with Gismarts Real Piano
483
cd/m²
488
cd/m²
453
cd/m²
491
cd/m²
497
cd/m²
467
cd/m²
501
cd/m²
482
cd/m²
437
cd/m²
Distribuzione della luminosità
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Massima: 501 cd/m² Media: 477.7 cd/m² Minimum: 19.42 cd/m²
Distribuzione della luminosità: 87 %
Al centro con la batteria: 497 cd/m²
Contrasto: 828:1 (Nero: 0.6 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 11.6 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.2
ΔE Greyscale 13.5 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
Gamma: 2.93
Maze Alpha X
IPS, 2160x1080, 6
Honor 9
IPS/LTPS, 1920x1080, 5.15
Doogee Mix
AMOLED, 1280x720, 5.5
Doogee BL5000
IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
IPS, 2160x1080, 5.9
Screen
43%
21%
11%
38%
Brightness middle
497
550
11%
358
-28%
519
4%
467
-6%
Brightness
478
535
12%
354
-26%
506
6%
457
-4%
Brightness Distribution
87
92
6%
90
3%
89
2%
89
2%
Black Level *
0.6
0.42
30%
0.52
13%
0.3
50%
Contrast
828
1310
58%
998
21%
1557
88%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
11.6
3.3
72%
4.9
58%
9.1
22%
5
57%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
22.1
4.5
80%
11.8
47%
19.6
11%
8.2
63%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
13.5
3.6
73%
3.9
71%
12.7
6%
6.1
55%
Gamma
2.93 75%
2.38 92%
2.33 94%
2.34 94%
2.15 102%
CCT
9955 65%
7226 90%
7260 90%
9611 68%
7961 82%

* ... Meglio usare valori piccoli

Sfarfallio dello schermo / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
flickering dello schermo / PWM non rilevato

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8929 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Tempi di risposta del Display

I tempi di risposta del display mostrano quanto sia veloce lo schermo a cambaire da un colore all'altro. Tempi di risposta lenti poccono creare sovrapposizioni negloi oggetti in movimento. Specialmente i giocatori patiti del 3D dovrebbero usare uno schermo con rempi di risposta bassi.
       Tempi di risposta dal Nero al Bianco
18.4 ms ... aumenta ↗ e diminuisce ↘ combinato↗ 6.8 ms Incremento
↘ 11.6 ms Calo
Lo schermo mostra buoni tempi di risposta durante i nostri tests, ma potrebbe essere troppo lento per i gamers competitivi.
In confronto, tutti i dispositivi di test variano da 0.8 (minimo) a 240 (massimo) ms. » 17 % di tutti i dispositivi è migliore.
Questo significa che i tempi di risposta rilevati sono migliori rispettto alla media di tutti i dispositivi testati (25.6 ms).
       Tempo di risposta dal 50% Grigio all'80% Grigio
45.2 ms ... aumenta ↗ e diminuisce ↘ combinato↗ 23.2 ms Incremento
↘ 22 ms Calo
Lo schermo mostra tempi di risposta lenti nei nostri tests e sarà insoddisfacente per i gamers.
In confronto, tutti i dispositivi di test variano da 0.9 (minimo) a 636 (massimo) ms. » 70 % di tutti i dispositivi è migliore.
Questo significa che i tempi di risposta rilevati sono peggiori rispetto alla media di tutti i dispositivi testati (41 ms).
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
63989 Points ∼25%
Honor 9
150276 Points ∼59% +135%
Doogee Mix
60164 Points ∼24% -6%
Doogee BL5000
43679 Points ∼17% -32%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
63195 Points ∼25% -1%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
3795 Points ∼37%
Honor 9
6113 Points ∼59% +61%
Doogee Mix
4908 Points ∼48% +29%
Doogee BL5000
3254 Points ∼32% -14%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
4847 Points ∼47% +28%
Work performance score (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
4562 Points ∼34%
Honor 9
7034 Points ∼52% +54%
Doogee Mix
6127 Points ∼45% +34%
Doogee BL5000
4349 Points ∼32% -5%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
6024 Points ∼45% +32%
BaseMark OS II
Web (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
924 Points ∼45%
Honor 9
1069 Points ∼53% +16%
Doogee Mix
813 Points ∼40% -12%
Doogee BL5000
10 Points ∼0% -99%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
753 Points ∼37% -19%
Graphics (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
1122 Points ∼4%
Honor 9
4126 Points ∼14% +268%
Doogee Mix
1115 Points ∼4% -1%
Doogee BL5000
641 Points ∼2% -43%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
849 Points ∼3% -24%
Memory (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
1294 Points ∼21%
Honor 9
3258 Points ∼52% +152%
Doogee Mix
1243 Points ∼20% -4%
Doogee BL5000
782 Points ∼12% -40%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
1998 Points ∼32% +54%
System (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
3064 Points ∼19%
Honor 9
4154 Points ∼25% +36%
Doogee Mix
3063 Points ∼19% 0%
Doogee BL5000
1885 Points ∼11% -38%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
2983 Points ∼18% -3%
Overall (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
1424 Points ∼17%
Honor 9
2779 Points ∼33% +95%
Doogee Mix
1363 Points ∼16% -4%
Doogee BL5000
309 Points ∼4% -78%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
1398 Points ∼17% -2%
Geekbench 4.1/4.2
Compute RenderScript Score (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
2726 Points ∼6%
Honor 9
Points ∼0% -100%
Doogee Mix
2922 Points ∼7% +7%
Doogee BL5000
1748 Points ∼4% -36%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
3015 Points ∼7% +11%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
3795 Points ∼10%
Honor 9
6527 Points ∼18% +72%
Doogee Mix
3903 Points ∼11% +3%
Doogee BL5000
2617 Points ∼7% -31%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
3631 Points ∼10% -4%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
833 Points ∼13%
Honor 9
1869 Points ∼29% +124%
Doogee Mix
840 Points ∼13% +1%
Doogee BL5000
612 Points ∼10% -27%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
914 Points ∼14% +10%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
1700 Points ∼40%
Honor 9
2287 Points ∼54% +35%
Doogee Mix
1876 Points ∼44% +10%
Doogee BL5000
1216 Points ∼29% -28%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
1527 Points ∼36% -10%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
598 Points ∼11%
Honor 9
2798 Points ∼52% +368%
Doogee Mix
649 Points ∼12% +9%
Doogee BL5000
327 Points ∼6% -45%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
289 Points ∼5% -52%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
699 Points ∼15%
Honor 9
2666 Points ∼56% +281%
Doogee Mix
759 Points ∼16% +9%
Doogee BL5000
390 Points ∼8% -44%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
353 Points ∼7% -49%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
1725 Points ∼41%
Honor 9
1809 Points ∼43% +5%
Doogee Mix
1912 Points ∼45% +11%
Doogee BL5000
1100 Points ∼26% -36%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
1667 Points ∼40% -3%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
928 Points ∼11%
Honor 9
2990 Points ∼36% +222%
Doogee Mix
938 Points ∼11% +1%
Doogee BL5000
484 Points ∼6% -48%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
532 Points ∼6% -43%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
1034 Points ∼16%
Honor 9
2611 Points ∼40% +153%
Doogee Mix
1058 Points ∼16% +2%
Doogee BL5000
553 Points ∼9% -47%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
627 Points ∼10% -39%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
15189 Points ∼18%
Honor 9
15150 Points ∼18% 0%
Doogee Mix
16619 Points ∼19% +9%
Doogee BL5000
10492 Points ∼12% -31%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
11780 Points ∼14% -22%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
13708 Points ∼3%
Honor 9
38979 Points ∼7% +184%
Doogee Mix
14288 Points ∼3% +4%
Doogee BL5000
10094 Points ∼2% -26%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
9936 Points ∼2% -28%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
14012 Points ∼6%
Honor 9
28883 Points ∼12% +106%
Doogee Mix
14748 Points ∼6% +5%
Doogee BL5000
10180 Points ∼4% -27%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
10294 Points ∼4% -27%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
24 fps ∼0%
Honor 9
60 fps ∼0% +150%
Doogee Mix
24 fps ∼0% 0%
Doogee BL5000
16 fps ∼0% -33%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
16 fps ∼0% -33%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
21 fps ∼1%
Honor 9
55 fps ∼2% +162%
Doogee Mix
35 fps ∼1% +67%
Doogee BL5000
17 fps ∼1% -19%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
16 fps ∼0% -24%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
11 fps ∼0%
Honor 9
30 fps ∼0% +173%
Doogee Mix
11 fps ∼0% 0%
Doogee BL5000
6.8 fps ∼0% -38%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
7.3 fps ∼0% -34%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
9.5 fps ∼0%
Honor 9
28 fps ∼1% +195%
Doogee Mix
22 fps ∼1% +132%
Doogee BL5000
7.3 fps ∼0% -23%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
6.7 fps ∼0% -29%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
3.7 fps ∼0%
Honor 9
22 fps ∼0% +495%
Doogee Mix
6.8 fps ∼0% +84%
Doogee BL5000
4.6 fps ∼0% +24%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
4.8 fps ∼0% +30%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
6 fps ∼0%
Honor 9
22 fps ∼1% +267%
Doogee Mix
16 fps ∼0% +167%
Doogee BL5000
5 fps ∼0% -17%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
4.5 fps ∼0% -25%
GFXBench
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
4.1 fps ∼0%
Honor 9
15 fps ∼0% +266%
Doogee Mix
4.1 fps ∼0% 0%
Doogee BL5000
2.4 fps ∼0% -41%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
2.9 fps ∼0% -29%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (ordina per valore)
Maze Alpha X
3.6 fps ∼0%
Honor 9
16 fps ∼1% +344%
Doogee Mix
8.3 fps ∼0% +131%
Doogee BL5000
2.7 fps ∼0% -25%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
2.7 fps ∼0% -25%
Lightmark - 1920x1080 1080p (ordina per valore)
Doogee Mix
5.4 fps ∼14%
Basemark X 1.1
High Quality (ordina per valore)
Doogee Mix
10216 Points ∼23%
Medium Quality (ordina per valore)
Doogee Mix
20373 Points ∼45%
Basemark ES 3.1 / Metal - offscreen Overall Score (ordina per valore)
Doogee Mix
216 Points ∼4%
Epic Citadel - Ultra High Quality (ordina per valore)
Doogee Mix
61.6 fps ∼100%

Legenda

 
Maze Alpha X Mediatek Helio P25, ARM Mali-T880 MP2, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
Honor 9 HiSilicon Kirin 960, ARM Mali-G71 MP8, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
Doogee Mix Mediatek Helio P25, ARM Mali-T880 MP2, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
Doogee BL5000 Mediatek MT6750, ARM Mali-T860 MP2, 64 GB eMMC Flash
 
Huawei Mate 10 Lite HiSilicon Kirin 659, ARM Mali-T830 MP2, 64 GB eMMC Flash
JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
Honor 9 (Chrome 59)
58.6 Points ∼100% +113%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite (Chrome 62)
30.233 Points ∼52% +10%
Maze Alpha X (Chrome Version 64)
27.463 Points ∼47%
Doogee Mix (Chrome 60)
24.6 Points ∼42% -10%
Doogee BL5000 (Chrome Version 61)
19.274 Points ∼33% -30%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Honor 9 (Chrome 59)
10208 Points ∼100% +105%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite (Chrome 62)
5096 Points ∼50% +2%
Maze Alpha X (Chrome Version 64)
4990 Points ∼49%
Doogee Mix (Chrome 60)
4175 Points ∼41% -16%
Doogee BL5000 (Chrome Version 61)
2802 Points ∼27% -44%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Doogee BL5000 (Chrome Version 61)
13720.2 ms * ∼100% -34%
Doogee Mix (Chrome 60)
10305.6 ms * ∼75% -1%
Maze Alpha X (Chrome Version 64)
10244 ms * ∼75%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite (Chrome 62)
8693.6 ms * ∼63% +15%
Honor 9 (Chrome 59)
3149 ms * ∼23% +69%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
Honor 9 (Chrome 59)
107 Points ∼100%
Huawei Mate 10 Lite (Chrome 62)
104 Points ∼97%
Doogee Mix (Chrome 60)
77 Points ∼72%

* ... Meglio usare valori piccoli

Maze Alpha XHonor 9Doogee MixDoogee BL5000Huawei Mate 10 Lite
AndroBench 3-5
23%
-3%
-1%
-19%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
73.99 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
34.64 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-53%
69.37 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-6%
35.35 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-52%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
80.96 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
67.99 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-16%
78 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-4%
69.1 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-15%
Random Write 4KB
11.61
32.7
182%
11.2
-4%
11.29
-3%
15.26
31%
Random Read 4KB
70.27
55.7
-21%
66.5
-5%
57.4
-18%
31.5
-55%
Sequential Write 256KB
162.16
204
26%
165
2%
171.45
6%
99.79
-38%
Sequential Read 256KB
247.44
293
18%
249
1%
274.75
11%
286.78
16%
Carico massimo
 38.4 °C38.1 °C35.9 °C 
 36.3 °C38.5 °C36 °C 
 35.5 °C35.4 °C34.5 °C 
Massima: 38.5 °C
Media: 36.5 °C
30.6 °C30.9 °C35.4 °C
30.6 °C31 °C35.7 °C
29.8 °C32 °C34.6 °C
Massima: 35.7 °C
Media: 32.3 °C
Alimentazione (max)  26.8 °C | Temperatura della stanza 20.4 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 36.5 °C / 98 F, compared to the average of 33.2 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 38.5 °C / 101 F, compared to the average of 35.7 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 35.7 °C / 96 F, compared to the average of 34.2 °C / 94 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 27.4 °C / 81 F, compared to the device average of 33.2 °C / 92 F.
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2035.244.12532.943.33137.2444031.739.65039.639.86328.332.78027.331.910026.931.812526.730.71602426.320020.929.625020.934.131519.541.540018.552.450017.557.363017.562.880015.769.2100015.872.2125016.668.3160015.866.8200015.472.6250015.570.531501673.5400015.877.250001679.9630016.374.6800016.368.71000016.2641250016.456.11600016.441.7SPL28.685.3N1.157median 16.4median 64Delta2.115.331.635.325.430.725.326.832.926.433.630.831.629.528.427.82726.920.825.32240.221.351.720.854.921.260.319.462.519.56317.765.717.967.117.866.417.368.817.47016.774.717.276.518.27617.977.317.67717.77617.875.317.970.818.162.918.2483085.31.363.5median 17.9median 66.41.310.331.633.525.429.825.328.732.93033.623.631.629.128.425.42726.120.824.42221.921.324.420.832.221.241.519.450.919.559.917.765.717.968.717.869.717.369.317.46716.768.117.27018.268.117.97117.674.617.775.117.869.717.968.418.163.818.255.63081.81.351.2median 17.9median 671.312.735.234.332.932.137.232.131.730.939.637.728.328.727.322.726.92526.724.12423.120.924.320.930.819.541.418.550.217.559.417.563.315.770.315.870.716.670.915.868.915.471.915.572.61672.115.876.21680.216.378.216.374.216.269.416.465.816.455.928.686.11.160.5median 16.4median 68.92.114.135.242.632.941.437.237.631.739.639.637.828.331.827.330.626.931.226.729.92432.820.939.620.945.819.549.818.557.317.558.417.559.815.762.315.866.216.66915.870.415.472.415.574.81676.415.878.31676.116.374.616.376.816.279.916.472.716.460.428.686.51.162.1median 16.4median 66.22.112.6hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseMaze Alpha XHonor 9Doogee MixDoogee BL5000Huawei Mate 10 Lite
Maze Alpha X audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.3 dB)
Bassi 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 31.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.1% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (11% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8.6% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (8.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (30% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 81% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 12% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 87% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 8% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Honor 9 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.3 dB)
Bassi 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 23.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.9% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 9.1% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 27% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 63% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 56% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 37% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Doogee Mix audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81.8 dB)
Bassi 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 38.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (27.1% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 66% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 25% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 79% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 16% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Doogee BL5000 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.1 dB)
Bassi 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 40.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.8% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (28.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 73% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 19% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 84% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 12% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Huawei Mate 10 Lite audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.5 dB)
Bassi 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 28% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (5.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 10.5% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (25.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 54% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 34% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 74% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 20% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Consumo di corrente
Off / Standbydarklight 0.01 / 0.15 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.9 / 2.14 / 2.18 Watt
Sotto carico midlight 3.96 / 5.81 Watt
 color bar
Leggenda: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Maze Alpha X
3900 mAh
Honor 9
3200 mAh
Doogee Mix
3360 mAh
Doogee BL5000
5050 mAh
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
3340 mAh
Power Consumption
-20%
12%
-28%
3%
Idle Minimum *
0.9
1.13
-26%
1.13
-26%
1.44
-60%
0.87
3%
Idle Average *
2.14
2.25
-5%
1.7
21%
2.9
-36%
2.14
-0%
Idle Maximum *
2.18
2.3
-6%
1.74
20%
3
-38%
2.16
1%
Load Average *
3.96
4.89
-23%
2.78
30%
4.55
-15%
3.7
7%
Load Maximum *
5.81
7.99
-38%
5.01
14%
5.4
7%
5.48
6%

* ... Meglio usare valori piccoli

Autonomia della batteria
Idle (senza WLAN, min luminosità)
27ore 04minuti
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
10ore 03minuti
Sotto carico (max luminosità)
4ore 00minuti
Maze Alpha X
3900 mAh
Honor 9
3200 mAh
Doogee Mix
3360 mAh
Doogee BL5000
5050 mAh
Huawei Mate 10 Lite
3340 mAh
Autonomia della batteria
-4%
-5%
38%
-17%
Reader / Idle
1624
1399
-14%
1486
-8%
1150
-29%
WiFi v1.3
603
516
-14%
573
-5%
1106
83%
520
-14%
Load
240
278
16%
331
38%
223
-7%
H.264
564
502

Pro

+ design sofisticato
+ economico
+ dual-SIM
+ microSD fino a 256 GB
+ spazio di espansione disponibile
+ buono lo spazio di archiviazione
+ schermo grande
+ buona autonomia
+ 12 mesi di garanzia
+ GPS buono
+ case robusto
+ nessun bloatware
+ temperature adeguate

Contro

- schermo sotto la media
- manca il marhcio CE
- specifiche inveritiere rispetto a WiFi e localizzazione
- lettore di impronte lento
- casse sotto la media
Recensione: Maze Alpha X, modello fornito da Maze Mobile
Recensione: Maze Alpha X, modello fornito da Maze Mobile

Per farla breve, l'Alpha X è di base un dispositivo solido. Tuttavia, ha molti punti deboli, ma nessuno è davvero grave. Il design potrebbe essere uno dei pochi punti di forza, ma ad essere onesti: per circa 200 Euro (~$250), saremmo tentati di dire che si tratta di uno smartphone ben bilanciato.

Smartphone economico senza seri punti deboli.

Entriamo nei dettagli: lo schermo è grande, molto grande, ed il design è comodo. La riproduzione del colore è orrenda rispetto agli standards attuali, sembra ferma a 3 -4 anni fa. La risoluzione dello schermo e gli angoli elegantemente arrotondati danno una impressione positiva. Le fotocamere fanno un lavoro sufficiente, ma non dovrete aspettarvi troppo. Nulla da dire in termini di prestazioni, autonomia, robustezza, Android, o dispositivi di input. Maze ha trovato un buon bilanciamento su questo nuovo dispositivo? Si, tocca solo al cliente decidere.

Ma c'è un piccolo problema: abbiamo notato che Maze fa dichiarazioni non veritiere rispetto ad alcune specifiche. Il Wi-Fi sicuramente non è 802.11 ac e le connessioni con il satellite BeiDou non riescono ad essere stabilite. Su cosa ancora mente Maze? Non ha un Gorilla Glass 5? Potrebbe rompersi alla prima caduta? Non lo sappiamo ma ci lascia un po' l'amaro in bocca.

Se cercate uno smartphone solido, stiloso con basi sottili e display grande e non vi interessa la qualità del colore, potrebbe essere una buona opzione per voi.

Per chi non bada ai colori, il Maze Alpha X ha la nostra incondizionata raccomandazione.

Nota: si tratta di una recensione breve, con alcune sezioni non tradotte, per la versione integrale in inglese guardate qui.

Maze Alpha X - 02/15/2018 v6
Florian Schaar

Chassis
88%
Tastiera
69 / 75 → 91%
Dispositivo di puntamento
97%
Connettività
38 / 60 → 64%
Peso
88%
Batteria
93%
Display
80%
Prestazioni di gioco
30 / 63 → 47%
Prestazioni Applicazioni
50 / 70 → 72%
Temperatura
92%
Rumorosità
100%
Audio
55 / 91 → 60%
Fotocamera
53%
Media
72%
81%
Smartphone - Media ponderata

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Recensioni e prove di notebook, tablets e smartphones > Recensioni e prove > Recensioni e prove > Recensione breve dello Smartphone Maze Alpha X
Florian Schaar, 2018-02-25 (Update: 2018-02-25)